On Head Coverings
Should Corinthians 11:2-16 be applied to every believer? If so, how? Debates have raged, friendships ended, churches split, fellow Christians have looked down their noses at each other over how this single passage is interpreted and applied. So, before I expound my understanding, before I throw my hat into the proverbial ring, before I add my voice to the thousands of others claiming to have this passage and its interpretation nailed down, we must discuss a simple fact. The command for head coverings for women and lack thereof for men is found only here in the New Testament. This is in comparison to The Breaking of Bread which is commanded or mentioned at least five times and Baptism is mentioned more than five times. I mention this to outline that to treat this command as on the same importance level is to treat it more highly than the New Testament does. (This is not to say this passage nor the discussion around it is unimportant, it should go without saying that everything in the Bible is supremely important to study.) All of this is to preface the fact that Christian brethren should not refuse to worship with each other or end relationships over a command given once with no other book of the Bible discussing it so that we can have added qualifiers to aid our understanding like we have with Communion and Baptism.
The primary argument I have heard against using head coverings is that Corinth had a massive temple sex cult with a thousand prostitutes who indicated their profession through not having their head covered.
Where people get this idea is from the Greek geographer Strabo who wrote Geographica about thirty years before Paul wrote Corinthians. Strabo mentions in Book 8 Chapter 6 that “the temple of Aphrodite was so rich that it owned more than a thousand temple slaves, courtesans,” and that “the city of Corinth then was always great and wealthy” he then comments on the current state of the temple saying “Now the summit has a small temple of Aphrodite;”
Strabo is comparing what the Greek city of Corinth had been like before it was destroyed by the Romans in 146 BC to what Roman Corinth was like after it was rebuilt in 44 BC. This demonstrates that the version of Corinth Paul is writing to is not the prostitute riddled city it had once been but to a Roman city with the normal amount of prostitution found throughout the empire.
We also know from Roman marble portraits at Corinth of wealthy and prestigious women they are often depicted bare headed as well as from public images found at Pompeii depicting a husband and wife in a public setting both with their head uncovered. If a woman having her head uncovered was considered inappropriate and a symbol of prostitution, then why were there depictions of Roman women of presumed rank depicted with their head uncovered?
What this look at the Roman culture at Corinth tells us is that we cannot use that culture as an excuse not to follow this biblical command. So, we must look at the passage and attempt to discern the intent and application.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16
2-3 “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”
The usage of head here is symbolic, it is saying that Christ is in charge of the man, the man is in charge of the woman, and God is in charge of Christ, this sets up a chain of command as well as helps in our interpretation of this passage by holding out the primary spiritual purpose of this passage which is chain of command and ensuring you are acting within your appointed position. This idea is strengthened by the fact that the word for head here kephalē also implies authority or source.
4-5a “Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head,”
“While praying or prophesying” seems to be the key to the when, but we have an issue, if we take this idea to its logical extreme and assume that 1 Thessalonians 5:17 “pray without ceasing;” is intended to be followed literally to the best of our abilities. That would mean that men could never have their head covered for any reason at any time which could be extremely deadly in very cold and very hot places. This would also mean women must keep their head always covered, including when lying in bed and bathing. Considering these extremes an overly strict interpretation cannot be accurate because no other command given to believers in the New Testament relating to worship tradition is an impossible task.
What about prophesying? The Blue Letter Bible outlines the usage of this word as.
I. to prophesy, to be a prophet, speak forth by divine inspirations, to predict.
A. to prophesy
B. with the idea of foretelling future events pertaining esp. to the kingdom of God
C. to utter forth, declare, a thing which can only be known by divine revelation.
D. to break forth under impulse in lofty discourse or praise of the divine counsels
i. under like prompting, to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort others.
E. to act as a prophet, discharge the prophetic office.
The meaning I would like to focus on is section D and the clarifying statement directly under it; to break forth under sudden impulse in lofty discourse or praise of the divine counsels, or under like prompting, to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort others.
Now if this definition is true, then ultimately any discourse surrounding spiritual matters at any time the men should be bare headed and the women’s heads covered. But why does the bible specify praying or prophesying? Why even say prophesying if you could never cover your head as a man or uncover your head as a woman due to praying without ceasing? There seems to be an assumption that you would not need to follow this command every second of every day so when should the command be followed?
The book of 1 Corinthians was written for a group of believers. Pretty much everything Paul covers in the book deals with how the believers should act when gathered corporately. So, the assumption should be that this should be how this passage should be interpreted. The issue is of whether a head is covered within corporate worship. If that fact is to be understood as evident in context and if the head should or shouldn’t be covered the entire time, then why specify praying or prophesying? My belief is that this is specified because it is not the quiet inward praying, or just talking to another person about spiritual matters but a specification of corporate leadership. The idea is, when gathered the person leading, in praying or prophesying, if a man his head should be uncovered to represent that Christ is his head and a woman should have her head covered in that position to recognize the men of the Church as the spiritual leaders.
Now this does not mean a woman can take the role of preacher and teacher as 1 Corinthians 14:34 says; “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.” Paul clarifies this idea in 1 Timothy 2:12 “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” So, we often then take this to mean they can teach children and other women. In those instances, the woman leading will be praying or prophesying. It is in those instances it is most important there is a symbol that should remind and assure people that she is not attempting to usurp authority from the men of the meeting but is acting under their authority in what she is teaching.
5b-6“For she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.”
For a woman to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered is equated with having a shaved head. By praying or prophesying with head uncovered she is in essence attempting to usurp the man’s role. This may be something she may consider “impowering”, but the Bible says it is a disgrace, it ruins a woman’s glory.
7-9“For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.
Paul continues to stress the chain of command. He seems to be using Genesis 2:18-23 where God fashion man from the dust of the earth then formed woman from the man’s rib. Paul seems to be insinuating that this order has always been God’s intent from the beginning.
10 “Therefore, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”
There will often be arguments about the type of head covering, but that argument seems unnecessary because ultimately the point is not whether or not a man can see a woman’s hair but instead does she display a symbol of authority. As long as what is worn can easily be understood by those being led by the woman that she is under the authority of man then what form that symbol, that covering takes is not as important.
But why does Paul bring the angels into this? I think it is Paul who reminds us that the corporate gatherings we engage in are not merely physical. Angels are real, they are observing, and we are expected to act in a manner that would not just demonstrate our heart attitude towards each other but would be recognizable and appreciated by the angels watching.
11-12“However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.”
Paul is clarifying that in the grand scheme of things we are equal. Man needs woman and woman needs man and they both have their origin in God. The covering of the head is not a point of dominance and control so much as a symbol that identifies two people’s different God given roles.
13-15“Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
Referring to nature, he is teaching something that is understood within his generation and is currently being reinforced. Paul referring to a woman’s hair as her glory here may also be intended to reassure women that it was fine to have long hair but that in the context of publicly praying or prophesying (teaching, preaching) she was to have it covered with a symbol of authority.
“For her hair is given to her for a covering.” Does this mean a woman doesn’t need to wear a head covering? If that were the case then this entire passage would seem pointless, how could a woman choose whether or not to pray with her head uncovered if her “covering” is grown into her scalp. Instead her hair being given as a covering could instead reference that her hair is intended to be admired, as referring to it as her glory would imply, and is to be used to help distinguish women from men in the day to day. But when gathered corporately if a woman is to pray or prophesy then she should add an outward symbol of her inward disposition.
Dr. Troy Martin and Dr. Michael Heiser have popularized the argument against head coverings, claiming that the word for covering in reference to women’s hair in verse 15 could also be translated as testicles. They quote the works of Hippocrates, who Heiser Claims on his Naked Bible podcast to be cutting edge science, where he claims that semen is stored in the brain and travels down the spinal column and that hair is also created from the semen. Heiser runs with this idea and claims that Paul wants women to cover their hair to not be violated by angels. (I have paraphrased all these ideas to try to be succinct, looking up what Heiser says about head coverings online will give a more detailed explanation of these ideas.)
There are a lot of issues with this argument that I will attempt to give an abbreviated response to because I have started seeing that this argument is spreading rapidly.
First the Greek word peribolaion translated covering here that Dr. Martin wants us to believe can also be translated testicle does not work and cannot be translated that way any where else in the Bible. Hebrews 1:12 says “AND LIKE A MANTLE, YOU WILL ROLL THEM UP; LIKE A GARMENT THEY WILL ALSO BE CHANGED. BUT YOU ARE THE SAME, AND YOUR YEARS WILL NOT COME TO AN END.” Peribolaion is translated mantle here to attempt to translate the word as testicle as Dr. Troy claims, is obviously false.
Second, Hippocrates was absolutely not cutting-edge science in Paul’s day. His work was around four-hundred years old. Herophilus, who was around about one-hundred years after Hippocrates and the man considered to be the first to perform systematic autopsies knew, and published where semen actually came from. He even understood that a woman’s ovaries to be a woman’s version of testicles and not her hair. Paul, an educated man, would have understood this fact.
Third, there is absolutely no evidence that within Jewish thought, they believed that the children of God slept with the daughters of men in Genesis 6:4 because the daughters of men had their head uncovered, I have found absolutely no evidence for this claim in any Jewish writing from the second temple period.
This argument that is growing in popularity is based entirely on ignoring or twisting linguistics and history in order to bend over backwards to find an excuse to not practice this command.
16“But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.”
The Corinthian Church was struggling with contentious factions, which 1 Corinthians 1:12-16 speaks to; “Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.” Instead of allowing this to become another issue, that some factions would hold to while others reject, causing further division. Paul leaves no room for it. Telling them that if someone wants to be contentious, that there is just one practice that the church must use with no wiggle room. They must obey the head covering rule when praying or prophesying.
In conclusion, I have not found any arguments against head coverings that hold any substantial weight. This passage seems to indicate that the wearing of head coverings for women and, the lack thereof for men, is for corporately praying or prophesying in a position of God-given authority.
C. P. Handrop
April 15, 2023