Since some folks have been discussing headcoverings in 1 Corinthians 11 recently, here is what you need to know:
My sermon on this text: HERE
(I think this sermon demonstrates pretty conclusively that first century Christian women did NOT wear headcoverings in worship.)
Sermon follow up: HERE
My essay “Women, Ministry, and Liturgy” which takes up headcoverings starting on page 11, HERE.
A few bullet points based on these recent discussions, supplementing what I have linked above:
- Women (and men) may have worn head coverings in daily life in old covenant Israel, but if so, it is not something the OT takes notice of, much less commands. Numbers 5:18 could possibly say that the woman “uncovers” her hair, but a better translation (following the ESV and the first definition of the Hebrew word in Strong’s concordance) is “unbind” or “loose.”
- 1 Corinthians 11:15 says that the woman’s hair is given to her as a covering. It is a natural head covering. What head covering proponents need to demonstrate is that the natural covering is not enough, that the woman actually needs two head coverings, an artificial one on top of her natural one. The ESV rendering of 11:15 is an excellent translation. Her hair has been given to her as a covering, or for a covering. What could be the rationale for needing another covering?
- To repeat myself, if Paul is requiring an extra artificial covering over her hair, why does Paul give instruction about how women braid and wear their hair in worship in 1 Timothy 2:9? If her head/hair will be covered, why bother warning women about how they decorate their hair? It will not do to say that Paul’s command that women adorn themselves with “modesty” could include a head-covering since Paul explicitly addresses the woman’s hair style.
- I have not seen convincing evidence that women in most ancient cultures wore head coverings at all times. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that in many cultures (including first century Corinth) this was not standard practice. Further, I do not think 1 Cor. 11 is about following pagan or even old covenant customs anyway, so what people in Corinth may have done does not seem relevant. The whole passage has to do specifically with Christian liturgical practices. One writer (who actually favors an artificial head covering) says this, debunking the myth Corinthian women always wore head coverings and Paul wanted Christian women to follow suit:
Myth #1: Only prostitutes went about with their heads uncovered and Paul did not want the Christian women associated with prostitutes.
This myth has been passed along because of a lack of good scholarly historical research. Ancient Greece and the time of Corinth under the Roman Empire have been lumped together. It would be similar to someone two thousand years from now saying what America was like in 2000 AD by studying life in colonial America.
The ancient city of Corinth with its temple prostitute system was destroyed in 146 BC. Julius Caesar restored Corinth a hundred years later. By the time 1 Corinthians was written, 200 years after the temple prostitute system was destroyed, Corinth was a thoroughly Roman city.1 Life in the Roman Empire, during this time in the first century AD, was in many ways more like society today than any other time in history. Women had a lot of “freedoms” that they did not have before. They were allowed to educate themselves, speak in public, and initiate a divorce. Women used contraceptives, practiced abortion, and exercised “sexual freedom.”2
The book of Acts mentions “chief” women in several of the cities, and women at Paul’s speech on Mars Hill. Many non-Christian women during this time did not cover their heads with a veil, although there were some who wore a veil or other head covering. Elaborate hair styles also became popular during this time…..
There is no command in the New Testament where the Church is instructed to follow the practices of non-Christians. As Christians, we are not to pattern our lives after the world but after Jesus and His commands. As you can see from the description of women in the Roman Empire in the first century, the head covering teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 was not based on the Corinthian culture. Nor was it based on the Jewish culture, where both men and women covered their heads. Jewish men at that time were easily recognized by their broad brimmed hats.
The woman’s headcovering in 1 Corinthians 11 is a practice that is distinctly Christian. The command for women to cover their heads and men not to cover their heads is based on creation, not culture (v.7-10).
- Women are certainly free to wear an artificial head covering to church (and elsewhere) if they wish, but I do not believe it is required. Her long hair is a natural and sufficient covering. Her long hair is both a sign of her glory and of her sexual differentiation from her husband. Her longer hair is a sign of her submission to his authority. Again I ask: What purpose could a second head covering serve? Would it not be redundant?
- On the counterpoint, it should be noted that Calvin that if women ever began uncovering their heads, they would eventually uncover their stomach and breasts as well. Unfortunately, it looks like Calvin may have gotten that right, given how immodest female dress has become. But I am still not convinced that artificial head coverings are the answer, exegetically speaking. This what Calvin preached: “So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature… So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, ‘Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?’ And then after that one will plead something else: ‘Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that? Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard.”
- To reiterate my previous argument, even if an artificial head covering is required in 1 Cor. 11, it seems it is only required when women pray or prophesy in public worship. But should women be praying and prophesying in worship at all? It seems not. While women certainly pray, and pray the corporate prayers in public worship with the rest of the body, no other text indicates they should have a role leading in the public prayers of the church. Indeed, since this is a priestly function, the one leading should be a man since he will be symbolizing the ministry of Christ before the gathered assembly. It is the same with prophesying. We know there were prophetesses in the early days of the new covenant era (cf. Acts 2, etc.), but we have no indication they carried out their prophetic ministry in the midst of the gathered assembly; in every example we have a women prophesying, they are outside the assembly. 1 Timothy 2:9-15 suggests very strongly that prophetesses did not speak in the assembly since a prophetic ministry is a teaching ministry and Paul forbids women from teaching or having authority in the assembly. Further, Paul’s command that women remain silent in the assembly (that is, not exercise liturgical leadership) in 1 Cor. 14 cannot be restricted to a supposed “judging of the prophets” in the service since Paul grounds this command in the law (probably referring Genesis 1-3, with a rationale similar to 1 Timothy 2:9-15, and the fact that the Torah only authorized males to lead worship in the synagogue and tabernacle/temple).
- The biggest challenge to my view comes from verse 5: Paul says that if a woman uncovers her head it is the same as if her head were shaven. Here’s the problem: if the covering is her hair, then uncovering her head (= cutting her hair) is not merely “as if” her head were shaven; it IS shaving her head (or at least cutting her hair short which seems to be the same thing for Paul). Thus, it seems there must a covering in addition to her hair. A couple responses: First, some have suggested that Paul is dealing with an artificial covering in verse 5 and then later on, in verse 16, teaches that the natural covering of long hair is sufficient. An artificial covering can be used, but does not have to be. Another option is that Paul is saying if a woman is going to cut her hair short like a man’s (so she can pray and prophesy like man) she might as well go all the way and shave it off — which everyone knows would be shameful. The argument thus is similar to what Paul says to the Judaizers in Galatians 5 — if they are going to circumcise themselves, they might as well go all the way and castrate themselves. This is exactly what Paul goes on to say in verse 6 — if a wife will not cover her head with long hair, she might as well cut her hair short or shave her head, but since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut her hair short or to shave her head, let her keep her head covered with her long hair….for her hair is given to her as a covering. I would ask: If she is going to have her head covered, why does it matter if her hair is cut short or shaved since the artificial head covering will cover her head? Paul never gets away from the issue of hair and hair length. And further consider: If public/liturgical praying and prophesying can only be done by someone with an uncovered head (the principle apparently laid down in verses 4-5), women must either cut their hair short or shave their heads. But this is disgraceful to them, since it is androgynous and disrespectful to their heads. The only option left for women is that they must keep their heads covered (with long hair) and not exercise liturgical leadership.
- Starting with the ESV of 1 Cor. 11:4-16, here is my interpretive paraphrase that fills in some gaps in the key verses and demonstrates how much gender confusion/androgyny is really at the heart of the issue Paul is addressing: “4 Any one who prays or prophesies in the church’s liturgical assembly with his head covered (like an old covenant priest, with a mitre, or with long hair) dishonors his head, Christ, because he treats Christ’s priestly ministry as incomplete and ineffectual, as if there were still a veil between us and God. And if a woman/wife were to pray or prophesy in the liturgical assembly with her head uncovered (that is, with her hair cut short), she would dishonor her head (her husband), since it is the same as if her head were shaven which is shameful. Her attempt to look like a man and lead the assembly like a man would be a sign that she is in rebellion against her husband’s headship and wants to displace him, much like Eve did to Adam in the Garden of Eden. 6 For if a woman/wife will not cover her head with her long hair, then she should be shorn of her hair to humiliate her. But since everyone knows it is disgraceful and shameful for a woman/wife to be shorn or shaven, let her keep her head covered with long hair (and thus let her refrain from leading the assembly in praying or prophesying since women are not permitted to lead the assembly by speaking, but should remain silent — 1 Cor. 14:33-35). 7 For a man ought not to cover his head with a head covering or long hair, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man, under his headship. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from (and after) the man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man, to be his helper. 10 That is why a woman/wife ought to have a symbol of her husband’s authority on her head, because of the angels, who are present in the gathered assembly, and who are jealous that God’s creational order be preserved since a fallen angel (Satan) led the woman and the man to rebel against this order in Genesis 3. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman — man and women are complementary and the goal is mutuality; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman — thus, the sexes are interdependent. And all things are from God, who rules over all. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman/wife to pray to God (publicly, like a man) with her head uncovered (like a man), that is, with her hair shorn or shaved? Of course not! If a woman were to lead the assembly, she would need to do so with an uncovered head (like a man’s head) but it is shameful for her to usurp man’s position in this way or to make her head look like a man’s by cutting her hair short.14 Does not nature — that is, God’s creational design — itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, because he becomes like a woman 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? The sexes should be distinguished in appearance and in role. For a woman to have short hair like a man is shameful, because it is an act of rebellion against God’s creational design for the sexes, but by contrast her long hair is given to her for a glory and covering — and, indeed, the only head covering she needs on her head. 16 If anyone is inclined to fight about this, we have no such practice, nor do all the other churches of God, including those churches that will be given instruction about how women should wear their uncovered long hair in church (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:9).”
- There are many reasons I am confident that Paul was not permitting women to publicly lead the church in prayer and prophesying in this chapter. One reason is that the overriding concern in this section (much like 1 Cor. 14:33-35 and 1 Tim. 2:9-15) is sex roles in the assembly. Paul is jealous to guard the church against any kind of androgyny or sexual role reversal. As in Paul’s day so in ours: confusion about the sexes is rampant and so it is vital that we get sex roles right in worship since worship is the center of life. Some women in the Corinthian church (much like what Timothy had to deal with in the Ephesian church) wanted to use their freedom in Christ to push a proto-feminist agenda. These women apparently wanted to become like men in appearance (e.g., short or shaved hair) and role (e.g., liturgical leadership). In doing so, they actually risked replaying the gender confusion manifested in the fall in Genesis 3. This is why 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 cannot be read without also consulting 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, where Paul commands the women to be silent. These texts taken together show that Paul is very, very concerned that proper sex roles be maintained in the church’s liturgical gatherings. Some want to restrict the silence in 1 Corinthians 14 to the “judging of the prophets” since the women are not the only ones in that chapter commanded to be silent. But the silence required of the woman there is unique; it is not merely a matter of doing things decently and in order, as in the other cases, but rooted in the law. Where does the law (presumably the Torah) deal with this? There is obviously no place in the law that deals with the judging of the prophets in the assembly. But there is a lot in the law about the respective liturgical roles of the man and the woman, going back to Genesis 2-3 (set in the Garden-sanctuary of Eden) and to the instructions given to male priests and their female helpers at the tabernacle (Ex. 38:8). Paul’s appeal to the law in 1 Cor. 14 is basically an appeal to the broad pattern of male liturgical leadership, established at creation and re-established/reinforced in the Torah. Unless we want to make 1 Cor. 11 an exception, at odds with the rest of Scripture, we should not use this text to conclude that Paul authorized women to lead the church’s liturgy. It makes much more sense to see Paul reining in rebellious Corinthian women and reminding them of how God’s creational design for the sexes is to be manifested in the church’s gatherings.
—
I’m adding to this post additional notes on the headcovering debate. These are mostly X posts, so some lack the context of what I am responding to, but I’m putting them here so everything on this topic can be found in one place:
What follows is mostly older X posts, including some from a headcovering discussion:
I have written on headcoverings in the past (see my blog, sermons, and sermon notes – plus a podcast). But I want to elaborate a bit on an a point I’ve made before. As I see it, the basic debate is over whether a woman’s long hair is a sufficient “natural” covering, or if she needs an additional artificial covering.
Let me frame it this way: Was Eve created in a state of shame?
Paul says it is shameful for a woman to have an uncovered head (1 Cor. 11:6). When Eve was created, no doubt she had long hair (the man and woman were created as mature adults, perfect masculine and feminine specimens). But she was naked so she definitely did not have an artificial headcovering. She was also unashamed so there was no shame in not having an artificial covering on her head.
Further, the woman was created in the Garden of Eden, in the sacramental sanctuary; if there is any place the woman would need a headcovering, it’s in the sanctuary. Yet, she was headcoveringless, other than her long hair. A woman’s long hair is her natural, God-given glory, the sign that she is under authority.
Whatever point Paul is making about the woman’s headcovering is rooted in nature; that is to say, it is rooted in God’s original creation design. That’s why Paul makes an appeal to nature in the discussion in 1 Corinthians 11. But there is no way the requirement for an artificial headcovering can be grounded in nature since the woman in her natural state did not have an artificial covering on her head. The entire context of Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 11:1-15 is creation; whatever he teaches about the male/female relationship must be consistent with what we find in Genesis 2. The woman in her created state had no headcovering other than her long hair and yet she had no shame.
To sum up:
Paul teaches that a woman with an uncovered head is a disgrace.
But Genesis teaches that the first woman, who was clearly not disgraced, had no headcovering other than her long hair.
Therefore, I conclude nature teaches a woman’s long hair is the only headcovering she ever needs.
I remain convinced that artificial headcoverings for women in worship are adiaphora, neither commanded nor forbidden. What nature teaches is that women should have longer hair than men because her hair is her glory, and she in turn is her husband’s glory.
—
If Paul argued the woman needs an artificial headcovering because of the fall, I could see that – but that’s not what he does.
Thus, I have to ask how the appeal to nature functions as a supporting premise in the argument – how does nature prove the need for an artificial headcovering when the woman did not have one in her natural state? I would argue nature teaches her long hair is an adequate covering because that’s what she had in the beginning.
There are certain changes that come in with the fall. But even when God clothes them in Genesis 3 (symbolically covering shame), nothing indicates she was given an artificial headcovering to go with the rest of the clothes she was given.
—
King’s bring glory to themselves by having glorious attendants in the royal court. If you saw a bunch of drably clothed attendants in the king’s court, you would think he was not a very glorious king. If you saw glorious attendants surrounding his throne, you would conclude he is a glorious king indeed. Good kings do not suck all glory into themselves; they pour glory out on others.
Likewise, God wants the fullness of glory on display when we gather for worship. He glorifies us as we come into the penumbra of his glory. If you look at the heavenly liturgy in Revelation 4ff, there is glory everywhere. Glory is not a zero sum game – as if for God to be glorified, humans have to be de-glorified.
—
I do not think women were required to wear headcoverings by Torah
Would it not be strange if male priests wore headcoverings in the old covenant, whereas now they do not, while women did not wear headcoverings in the old covenant but now must do so?
On a theology of clothing in general, as a sign of maturation and glory, I’d point you to Jim Jordan’s work.
—
Clothing is not just about shame. Clothing is maturation. We would have been given clothes even in an unfallen world.
—
When did headcoverings become a requirement since the OT says nothing about them?
I do not object to the custom of headcoverings for women. I object to them as a requirement.
—
Note that in 1 Cor 11, the appeal is to nature (created order).
In 1 Cor 14, the appeal is to the law (14:34).
We can debate whether Eve’s dialogue with the serpent in Genesis 3 was already the beginning of her sin. Was it shameful for her to speak in the Garden?
But no one can make an argument that she was wearing a headcovering other than her long hair – she was naked and unashamed. She was covered in glory, but it was the glory of her hair.
What the pro-headcovering folks need to demonstrate is that a second covering in addition to her hair is somehow required by nature.
—
In the old covenant, the priest’s headcovering was a kind of veil. Now men worship with uncovered heads. In Revelation 4, the elders cast down their crowns as the Lamb is enthroned, signifying the change in covenants.
—
Every honest interpreter has to admit 1 Cor. 11:2ff is difficult and there is no problem-free way of exegeting it. The problem with brining the fall into it is that it seems Paul’s whole argument is based on the creation order. The reference to angels is due to the fact that the passage has a liturgical context and new covenant worship takes place in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 10:19ff, 12:22ff, etc.).
The whole argument is about male/female distinctions and mutuality. Hair length is one way men and women visually distinguish themselves.
—
If Paul is requiring an extra, artificial covering over a woman’s hair, why does Paul give instruction about how women braid and wear their hair in worship in 1 Timothy 2:9? If her head/hair will be covered, why bother warning women about how they decorate their hair? It will not do to say that Paul’s command that women adorn themselves with “modesty” could include a headcovering since Paul explicitly addresses the woman’s hair style. If a woman’s hair is going to be covered by her headcovering, why does Paul have to tell women to not come to church with fancy braids in their hair? Wouldn’t the headcovering cover up those braids anyway?
I conclude from 1 Timothy 2:9 (and additional evidence) that women were not coming to church in the first century with artificial headcoverings. And since whatever Paul is requiring in 1 Cor. 11:1-15 was practiced by all the churches (including Ephesus, where Timothy pastored), artificial headcoverings were not the norm in the apostolic era.
—
1 Cor. 11:2ff is about sex roles in public worship.
—
There are some very fine people on both sides of the headcovering debate. A few questions for those who take the artificial covering view:
If a woman is wearing a headcovering, may she publicly pray or prophesy in church? Does she need to wear the headcovering only when praying or prophesying? Or only in church meetings? Or at all times?
Is the headcovering supposed to cover the face (like a veil), or the hair, or both? How much head or hair needs to be covered to count as a headcovering?
When did the headcovering become an obligation? Was it an obligation from the beginning, from creation? Was it an obligation under Torah (if so, where is it commanded)? If it became a new obligation with the inauguration of the new covenant, why is there is no real debate or further discussion of it in the NT outside of 1 Cor. 11? And why does Paul make his appeal to creation rather than to features of the new covenant if it’s a new obligation?
How, exactly, does nature teach that the woman needs an artificial headcovering in worship (or in all of life)? I know what it’s like to make arguments from nature about, eg, sodomy, but what does the natural law argument for artificial headcoverings look like?
The appeal to church history is powerful since headcoverings were widespread amongst Christian women for much of history. In how many of those cultures did women wear headcoverings to church only vs also wearing headcoverings in daily life? In how many of those cultures did non-Christian women wear headcoverings?
Sorry I can’t get to all the questions/comments raised by my post, but getting these questions answered would help further the discussion.
—
How much of a woman’s head has to be covered for it to be considered a headcovering? There doesn’t seem to be agreement on that point, with answers ranging from veils that cover even the face to headbands that hardly cover anything. But I stand by my earlier argument. If the point of the headcovering is to cover her glory (her hair) completely then there is no reason for Paul to give the instructions he does in 1 Timothy 2. If her hair is not completely covered, it is not a headcovering because her glory is still visible.
—
I don’t think the seraphim covering their faces and their feet has any direct bearing upon the woman’s headcovering in 1 Cor. 11. The passage would either prove too much or too little if an analogy was drawn.
—
I am not all convinced women widely practiced wearing some kind of hat or headcovering historically because of 1 Cor. 11. Many non-Christian women have worn similar things, as a matter of custom, or culture, or fashion.
—
If Paul argued the woman needs an artificial headcovering because of the fall, I could see the argument – but that’s not what he does.
Thus, I have to ask how the appeal to nature functions as a supporting premise in the argument – how does nature prove the need for an artificial headcovering when the woman did not have one in her natural state? I would argue nature teaches her long hair is an adequate covering because that’s what she had in the beginning.
There are certain changes that come in with the fall. But even when God clothes them in Genesis 3 (symbolically covering shame), nothing indicates she was given an artificial headcovering to go with the rest of the clothes she was given.
—
Are women in your church allowed to pray and prophesy publicly provided they wear an artificial headcovering?
—
So how much of her hair has to be covered for it to count as a headcovering?
—
The Roman Catholic mitre (and other forms of headdress used by Roman priests) are violations of Paul’s teaching for men in 1 Cor. 11. In Revelation 4, the elders cast down their crowns as the Lamb takes the throne and before they cry out in prayer, “Worthy is the Lamb….”
—
See also: https://tpcpastorspage.com/2025/08/18/old-x-posts-2/.
TPC Pastor's Page 