1. Introduction
Last month, the session of the church where I pastor published a statement that included the following appraisal:
We do not believe that 1 Corinthians 11 requires women to wear a head covering when they assemble with the church to worship on the Lord’s Day.
After many months of study and discussion, we concluded that Paul was not mandating head coverings for women in church. The wording of our statement is important. This is not a prohibition against families practicing this in our church. Rather, we don’t believe head coverings for women are mandatory for participation in the liturgy. But we also included a warning against actively campaigning for the practice as obligatory. The potential for division is high, as many churches have discovered. How so?
What many in the head covering movement either overlook or obscure in their arguments is that, if one takes 1 Corinthians 11:4–9 as the Apostle Paul’s argument and conclusion, then one must acknowledge not only the requirement for women to wear a covering when praying in church, but also the severe condemnation of women who gather for worship without them. If a woman shows up in church without a head covering, she engages in disgraceful, shameful behavior:
Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head (1 Cor 11:5–6).
If the advocates of head coverings for women are trying to be faithful to Scripture, then they must take seriously the strong words they believe Paul uses to condemn noncompliance. That’s an undeniable part of the passage. But that is the case only if verses 4–6 express Paul’s position and not the Corinthians’. If one argues that 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is all Paul’s exhortation, one also needs honestly to embrace all of Paul’s strong language.
If those who practice head covering look on the women that don’t cover as behaving shamefully and think that not covering one’s head is “the same as shaving their heads,” then the congregation has been divided. When the women who don’t wear head coverings observe others in church wearing them, they might think, “Oh, isn’t that interesting—these women are wearing a head covering.” But men and women who are promoters of head coverings will look at the women not covering their heads in church and think, “These women are a disgrace and should not be in the assembly without a head covering.” How could this not be divisive?
But I’m getting ahead of myself by suggesting that verses 4–6 are not Paul’s position but a summary of the Corinthian argument. That might seem odd to the reader at this point, so the argument for that interpretation needs to be made.
2. Retraction
Before I go into more detail about my perspective on the reasons for my session’s new statement, let me start with a personal note. Earlier this year, as a way of answering questions we were getting from our congregation, I shared this proposed statement with the other elders and pastors:
In the first-century, apostolic church, when the miraculous gifts of praying in tongues (languages) and prophesying were sometimes given by the Spirit to women, they were to exercise those gifts in the assembled church with their heads/hair covered. This would be necessary because when a woman spoke so as to command the attention of the gathered church, she would ordinarily be violating not only the created order of masculine authority but also what the law of God commanded. So to remind everyone of the extraordinary nature of this activity, the woman praying or prophesying would need to conceal what visibly characterized her femininity—her glorious hair. These “head coverings” were not simply hats or small bonnets placed on top of the woman’s head. The point was to symbolically de-glorify the woman speaking, to de-emphasize her womanliness. That meant concealing her hair. And this was only necessary when women were miraculously gifted by the Spirit to address the assembled community in tongues or with prophetic utterances. There was no apostolic command for women to wear a head covering when they came to church and participated in the service, only when they engaged in an activity that is ordinarily inappropriate for a woman in the church. Paul addresses an exceptional practice in an exceptional moment of redemptive history, not a universal dress code for all times and places.
This was my position back then, and it had been my position for more than 40 years. I first heard this interpretation from James Jordan when I was his student in Tyler, Texas, in the mid-’80s. This position persuaded me because of Jordan’s influence and because it fit with my preterist view of the interim church before AD 70. The apostolic era was a transitional time, when the whole Jew-Gentile world was being judged and a new world order under the Lordship of Jesus was emerging. A few of my professors at Covenant Seminary in the ’80s confirmed the meaning of tongues and prophecy for the apostolic church and the cessation of those miraculous gifts after the first century.
For 38 years, I have taught that position as a pastor. My first sermon series at Covenant Presbyterian Church in Houston was on 1 Corinthians. I have since preached through it again and have done at least 3 women’s and men’s Bible studies on the letter. Last fall, I finished up a year-long study of 1 Corinthians in our ladies Bible study. Each time, I have explained 1 Corinthians 11 as relating to the interim, transitional time in the apostolic church, when miraculous gifts of praying in tongues and prophesying were given to men and women in some of the churches. This was particularly true in Corinth where the church met next door to the synagogue, which had recently been emptied of Jewish believers, leaving only the apostate, hateful unbelieving Jews (Ac 18:1–17). According to Paul, speaking and praying in tongues (non-Hebrew languages) was a sign for unbelieving Jews (1 Cor 14:22; cf Deut 28:49; Is 28:11, 12).
If, and again I say, if Paul was explicitly requiring head coverings for women, this would make sense of most of the passage. When women who were given the miraculous gifts of praying and prophesying commanded the attention of the congregation in the assembly, they had to cover their glorious hair because such authoritative leadership in the assembly was outside of the biblical order requiring that men officiate in the liturgical assembly.
But, honestly, I never took the time to analyze 1 Corinthians 11 carefully because that position made a lot of sense to me. A superficial reading of most English translations seems to confirm that Paul was arguing for some sort of head covering for women. Nevertheless, after more careful translation work, exegesis, and a comparison of commentaries and journal articles, I have concluded that my earlier interpretation is not the best one.
3. Reformed Options
Before I move on and explain why I have changed my mind, I should note that in the Reformed tradition there are four common ways to interpret 1 Corinthians 11:2–16:
- The traditional Reformed view is that Paul is addressing a local custom in Corinth, and so this passage has something to say about churches following local/regional clothing customs that distinguish men and women. Virtually every older Reformed commentator takes this view, following John Calvin. More on Calvin shortly. This is also the dominant interpretation in Evangelical circles.
- The preterist view is the one I outlined above and which I held in the past. Paul is talking about women who have been given the miraculous, pre-AD 70 gift of praying in tongues and prophesying. His directives are not applicable anymore. Some CREC churches have adopted this view in their public statements.
- The interpretation that understands Paul to be addressing and correcting a Corinthian error (making head coverings mandatory for women in church). The latter part of the passage (vv. 10–16) corrects the Corinthian error. Women do not need to cover their heads in worship; their hair is a sufficient covering.
- Paul is giving us a universal, compulsory rule that women must wear head coverings whenever they pray or prophecy (which they do in the assembly on the Lord’s Day).
When we say in our session’s statement that we don’t believe 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 requires women to wear head coverings, that would follow from any of the first three positions. I favor position 3 now, as do some on our session. But as I will say at the end of this article, I am far from taking a hardline approach. My own change of mind leads me to be more cautious.
If there is any consensus among modern biblical scholars about 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, it is that this passage is so enigmatic that its original meaning is likely beyond recovery. Perhaps we don’t need to go that far. But anyone who carefully examines the passage, no matter which interpretation they favor, will find it necessary to perform some “mental gymnastics” to make everything Paul says fit into their view. Only a superficial reading of an English translation will bypass the challenge of making sense of what appears to be contradictory statements.
How did I get to where I am now?
4. Translation Problems
Let me start with the translation challenges. A better understanding of the Greek text is what has led me to reevaluate the whole passage.
4.1. Whose Authority?
The big challenge is 1 Corinthians 11:10. The English Standard Version (ESV) translates it this way: “That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head.” (we’ll leave the question about angels for later). That translation is intolerably inaccurate. A more accurate translation would be, “A woman ought to have authority over her head.” Why?
First, the Greek text does not have the word “symbol” or “sign.” That has been added by translators who think they know what Paul meant but didn’t quite say it clearly. If you assume that Paul is commending head coverings, then you must add something to the sentence to make sense of what is assumed to be the flow of Paul’s argument.
Second, the most egregious mistranslation is of the Greek phrase ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς. Whenever this verbal combination (“to have authority over”) is used, it always refers to the authority that person possesses and never to someone else’s authority. An accurate translation should read “the woman ought to have authority over her head,” or even “the woman ought to have liberty/power over her own head.”
Every commentator who is careful with the Greek text acknowledges that there is no known case anywhere in biblical (LXX or NT) or classical Greek literature that would justify a translation that would mean the woman is recognizing someone else’s authority (like Jesus’ or her husband’s). Some copyists in the post-apostolic church had such a problem with the plain meaning of Paul’s sentence that they audaciously substituted the word “veil” for “authority”: “The woman ought to have a veil on her head.” Again, if you assume you know the logic of Paul’s argument, then you must do some interpretive contortions to make the logic of the passage flow.
There are more than a hundred uses of ἐξουσία (“authority”) in the New Testament, and they are all about the subject’s authority. X has authority over Y. To list just a few examples:
- But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. (Matt 9:6; cf. Lk 5:24)
- The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations. (Rev 2:26)
- [T]hey have authority/power over the waters to turn them into blood. (Rev 11:6b).
- And another angel came out from the altar, the angel who has authority over the fire. (Rev 14:18a)
- For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. (1 Cor 7:4)
In 1 Corinthians 11:10, Paul does not say that the woman has “a symbol” or “a sign” of someone else’s authority on her head. Rather, she herself possesses authority over her own head. That means she has the power, the right, to do with her head/hair what she wants.
If the woman has authority over and will one day judge the angels, as will all the saints (1 Cor 6:3), she can certainly judge for herself what’s on her head or how her hair looks.
Just a brief side note before moving on. There’s no reason to exaggerate what Paul is saying here. He’s talking about the woman’s liberty with regard to her head and hair. He’s not saying that she has some sort of absolute authority apart from her husband’s involvement. Paul’s statement in verse 10 must be taken with the other New Testament passages that talk about the husband’s authority and the wife’s submission. Here Paul is simply saying the woman has the right to make decisions about her hair and head.
This is no different than Paul or Peter speaking directly to women in other places about how they wear their hair and dress. For example, Peter addresses the women: “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing” (1 Pet 3:3). He’s not talking to fathers or husbands, but to the women themselves. This kind of direct address assumes these Christian women have the agency and the authority/liberty to make the correct decisions.
Someone will ask. “What, then, do we do with the beginning of verse 10? How does the authority of women over their own head follow from what comes before?” Perhaps it doesn’t follow. Some English translations say, “Therefore.” The ESV has, “This is why.” Both those translations seem to be pointing back to what came before, which makes verse 10 the conclusion of an argument (verses 4–9). The Greek is “because of this” or “for this [reason]” (διὰ τοῦτο). When these two words are used in an argument, they can either point backwards, “for the reason(s) just given,” or they can point forward, “for the following reason(s).” The phrase is used about 70 times in the New Testament. A few examples where it points forward include these:
- The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. (1 Jn 3:1).
- For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers. (Eph 1:15–16).
- For this reason, I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down (2 Cor 13:10).
How we understand the beginning of verse 10—dia touto (διὰ τοῦτο)—depends on how we interpret the passage as a whole. If we believe that what has gone before (11:4–9) is Paul’s argument, then 11:10 is the conclusion of his argument and we would translate it “Therefore.” The problem with that interpretation is that the conclusion (“a woman ought to have authority over her head”) doesn’t make sense of what has come before. This is where commentators get creative. Commentators and translators must add “a symbol” or “a sign” to the sentence—“a symbol of authority on her head”—because they think only such an addition will make sense of Paul’s argument.
However, if we take seriously the contrasting statement about the woman’s own authority, then verse 10 begins Paul’s correction to the Corinthian error of requiring head coverings for women. In other words, “For the following reasons, [you Corinthians are wrong]; the woman ought to have authority over her own head.” Everything Paul says after verse 10 gives his reasons why a woman has authority over her own head and so is designed to correct the Corinthians’ insistence on women covering their heads.
What this means is that an accurate translation of verse 10 is an insurmountable problem for the compulsory-head-covering interpretation. It is exactly the kind of discovery that causes one to go back and examine the whole passage again more carefully. This is one of the sentences in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 that led me to question my earlier way of understanding this passage.
4.2. Rhetorical Questions?
Next, let’s look at verses 13–15. These verses are often taken as questions, but there is nothing in the text to indicate these are questions, other than how one may have interpreted the previous statements in chapter 11. Remember, there are no punctuation marks in Greek. There are often verbal markers that signal to the reader that a sentence is a question, but no such markers are present in this text. Rather than questions, it’s not implausible that these are Paul’s statements that stand in contrast to what the Corinthians have been teaching in verses 4–9. We can therefore read it this way:
Judge for yourselves. It is proper for a woman to pray uncovered. Nor does nature teach you that it is dishonorable for a man to have long hair. Now if a woman has long hair, it is her glory, for the woman’s hair is given to her as a covering.
A number of commentators note that Paul had long hair when he was in Corinth for about a year and a half. He cut his hair after he left town and arrived in Cenchreae (Ac 18:18). After all, how might nature teach us that men’s hair ought to be short? Does a man’s hair stop growing at his ears or shoulders? Do hair-cutting shears and scissors grow on trees?
Finally, there’s Paul’s unequivocal statement in verse 15b that the woman’s hair is her covering. “For her hair is given to her instead of [ἀντὶ] a covering.” The practice of covering her hair with something else is not needed. Her long (or glorious) hair is her covering.
Observations like these are what made me go back and reconsider the whole passage. If Paul at the end was making those kinds of anti-head-covering statements, what was the first part of the argument (before verse 10) all about? I think the best interpretation is to read verses 4–9 as Paul’s somewhat snarky summary of the Corinthian position. Not that everything he says in those verses is wrong—headship, origin, and so on. But the overly dramatic insinuations (dishonoring her head, her head shaved, cut her hair short, woman from man, and woman for man, etc.), and especially the deduction that the Corinthians were drawing—that women need to wear head coverings—were wrong.
In verse 16, Paul concludes his polemic against the Corinthian practice of men making women cover their heads in the assembly: “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.”
The only practice mentioned in the previous verses was the practice the Corinthians were insisting on—head coverings for the women. Paul says, “We have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” And this is precisely what we discover in the rest of the New Testament. There is not one mention of head coverings anywhere in the Gospels, Acts, or any of the epistles, and that is perfectly consistent with the absence of any mention of head coverings in the Hebrew Scriptures. Requiring women to wear head coverings was not a practice in Israel or in the apostolic churches.
5. Old & New Testaments
Let’s drill down on that. There is no evidence in Scripture of women wearing head coverings in Israel’s history. Nothing in the text of the law. No mention in any Old Testament historical narratives or the prophets. If women covering their heads in corporate assemblies was grounded in God’s design in creation (as the Corinthians were arguing in verses 4–9), then why do we hear nothing of it in the Old Testament? The only mention of headgear in the law concerned the male priests, who were required to wear head coverings when they performed their duties in the sacred assemblies (Ex 28:4, 37; 29:6; Lev 8:9; 16:4).
When “veils” (צָעִיף) for women are mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures, every reference has to do with marriage and the face of the women being covered and/or uncovered with reference to her husband (Gen 24:65; 38:14, 19; Song 4:1, 3; 5:7; 6:7). There is no mention of women needing to cover their heads when they participate in the weekly sabbath feasts or the yearly assemblies at the Tabernacle or Temple. If this was some sort of “creation mandate,” as the Corinthians seemed to think (vv. 4–9), why is it never mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures?
Some have pointed to Numbers 5:18 as an example of women wearing a head covering. The Hebrew, however, is ambiguous. It could mean “uncover her head,” but it could also mean “unbind the hair of her head” (ESV). Even with the first reading, this doesn’t help the argument for women wearing head coverings in church because the priest is to “bring the woman near and set her before Yahweh” (5:16). In other words, coming into the Lord’s presence she must uncover her head or unbind her hair, just the opposite of what some think Paul is mandating in 1 Corinthians 11.
Add to the absence of head coverings in the Old Testament that there is nothing ever mentioned about women wearing head coverings in the Gospels, Acts, or any of the other New Testament epistles. Paul addresses women’s behavior and dress in 1 Timothy 2:9–12:
Likewise also th[e] women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain silent.
Everyone agrees that he is talking about how women should look and behave in the gathered assembly. What a perfect time to remind them to wear their head coverings. But Paul says nothing here about covering their heads.
Peter also admonishes women in 1 Peter 3:1–5:
Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives— when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their husbands.
Again, why doesn’t Peter advise them about wearing head coverings, the symbol or sign of their submission?
If someone says, “Well, isn’t one mention of head coverings in Scripture (1 Cor 11) enough for us?” The problem with this is the only place we find it is in Corinth, which is a contentious community characterized by odd, idiosyncratic practices. This fits well with Paul’s closing statement in verse 16: “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” What practice can he be talking about other than the women covering their heads?
6. Problems in Corinth
The Corinthian church had unique problems and challenges. There are some significant problems Paul sought to correct in Corinth that are not addressed in any other epistle in the New Testament. This is the only letter, for example, that addresses the abuses associated with tongues and prophecy. There’s no evidence from other New Testament letters that speaking in tongues was a regular part of the life of those other churches like it was in Corinth.
As mentioned earlier, there’s a reason for the outbreak of speaking in non-Hebrew languages in the Corinthian church. Acts 18 records the conflict between the synagogue and the new church. The church assembled in the house next door to the synagogue. Given the open-air nature of the houses, the synagogue would have heard what was going on in the assembled church next door. Speaking in foreign languages was a sign of judgment against unbelieving Jews, according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 14:22 (quoting Is 28:11–12; Deut 28:49). Every time tongues/languages are mentioned in Acts the occasion always has to do with the problem of Jew-Gentile relations in the new covenant.
Why is this important? It demonstrates that the Corinthian situation is eccentric and Paul is not dealing with ordinary questions and issues. If someone says that this one place in Paul’s epistles is enough to establish a universal mandate for women to wear head coverings, I question the wisdom of such a conclusion.
Everything else Paul talks about in this epistle is addressed in other portions of Scripture—baptism, Greek wisdom, Jewish hubris, apostolic suffering and authority, sexual immorality and church discipline, homosexuality and other forms of sexual immorality, marriage, divorce, and singleness, food offered to idols, the rights of an apostle, idolatry, the Lord’s supper, spiritual gifts, love, tongues, prophecy, women teaching in church, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the collection for the saints in Jerusalem, and more. But there is not one word about head coverings anywhere else in the New Testament. It was an errant practice in Corinth that Paul had to squash.
After stating (and embellishing) the Corinthian argument (vv. 4–9, where the grounding of the Corinthians’ argument is often correct, but their deductions and applications are not) Paul offers his correction, beginning in verse 10. Not everything said in verses 4–9 is untrue—just the conclusions they are drawing. Quoting, even mocking, the Corinthian errors in order to correct them is a move Paul makes in this epistle numerous times.[1]
Corinth: I follow Paul. I follow Apollos. I follow Cephas
Paul: Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?
Corinth: The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself judged by no one…We have the mind of Christ.
Paul: But I brothers cannot speak to you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as babies in Christ.
Corinth: Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! Without us you have become kings!
Paul: God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death, because we have become a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are wise in Christ. We are weak, but you are strong.
Corinth: A man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant!
Paul: Ought you not rather to mourn?
Corinth: When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go before the unrighteous instead of the saints?
Paul: Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you know that we are to judge angels?
Corinth: All things are lawful for me.
Paul: But I will not be enslaved by anything.
Corinth: Food is for the stomach and the stomach for food.
Paul: And God will destroy both one and the other.
Corinth: It is good for a man to have no sexual relations with a woman.
Paul: Each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
That’s only about the first half of the letter. And those eight examples don’t even come close to exposing the extent of the foolishness of the Corinthian church or the sarcasm Paul often uses to address them. It takes some discernment to see how Paul has woven all through this letter the errors in Corinth. He’s going to do this again in the second half of chapter 11, right after he deals with the head covering issue. For example, in the last half of chapter 11, Paul uses their own statement against them to mock their divisive practice at the Lord’s Table: “For [according to you] there must be factions among you that the proven ones may be recognized” (11:19). But Paul rebukes them: “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat.”
7. Practical Implications of the Corinthian Argument
I don’t like the designation “the quotation theory” to describe what Paul is doing in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. First, as we have seen, there’s nothing theoretical about Paul’s way of exposing the erroneous opinions or practices of the Corinthians and then contradicting them with strong statements of his own. And second, he doesn’t always “quote” them verbatim, as the passages I just referred to above illustrate. There’s nothing odd or out of character about Paul’s way of dealing with the problem of requiring head coverings for the women in Corinth. He derisively summarizes their arguments (vv. 4–9), then contradicts them in his characteristic way (vv. 10–16).
That verses 4–9 represent the Corinthian position is the sticking point for many people. We read these verses and see references to Genesis 2 and the creation of Adam and Eve, as well as to male headship in the family. These are familiar Pauline themes. Why, then, would we think these verses characterize the erring mind of the Corinthians rather than the inspired mind of Paul? The answer: because of the specious conclusions the Corinthians are drawing from these biblical truths. Let me bring this out of the realm of theory and show you what the Corinthian conclusions mean in practice.
If the leaders of Corinth are correct, then whenever you see an uncovered woman praying and praising God in the Christian assembly you should judge her to be an unruly, unsubmissive woman or wife. You should be disgusted with her dishonorable behavior. You should hope that all her hair would be cut off to teach her a lesson and put her in her place. If you are a pastor or elder in the church, she should not be allowed into the corporate worship of the church unless she wears a head covering, cuts her hair short, or shaves her head. If you buy into the Corinthian conclusions, you will appraise women worshipping God without a head covering with the judgments against them that are described in verses 4–9: such behavior is dishonorable, disgraceful, and ought to be addressed with severe consequences like shaving their heads. This does not represent the inspired mind of Paul, but the ham-fisted minds of the Corinthian leaders.[2]
If you believe, therefore, that 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 lays down a universal, compulsory rule for women to wear head coverings when they participate in the assembled prayer of the church, then we are not dealing here with adiaphora. This is not an “indifferent” practice that churches and Christians have the liberty to practice or not. This is not merely about maintaining proper decorum in church. Women wearing head coverings would be a divine mandate, and noncompliance would be disobedient and sinful.
8. History & Tradition
What about the argument from the history of the post-apostolic church? Many of the post-apostolic, early church fathers taught that women ought to wear head coverings. Many even called for women to wear a “veil” (kalumma), not just something on top of their heads, but covering their face. “Veil” (kalumma) is not a Greek word Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 11, but rather in 2 Corinthians 3:13 to describe a face-veil. But in 2 Corinthians he’s not talking about women. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others misunderstood this passage, reading into 1 Corinthians 11 the common veiling customs of their day. This misunderstanding continued for centuries.
Even so, there are others in the early church that sometimes appear to suggest that the covering in 1 Corinthians 11 is the woman’s glorious hair, not a veil or cloth covering. To say that the post-apostolic church practiced head-coverings the way it is practiced by some today is not accurate. They were largely following the gender-distinctive costumes of their day. And we should recognize that the church “fathers” were also “babies” when it came to many issues like this one. A short quotation from The Oxford History of Christian Worship will suffice to illustrate how wonky so many of the early church fathers were about women in worship:
The early-third-century Traditio Apostolica (ch. 21) already stipulates that women had to remove all gold jewelry and open their hair at the point of their baptism. The third-century Didascalia Apostolorum (ch. 3) enjoins women to receive the eucharist with their heads covered. The fourth-century Egyptian Canones Hippolyti (Can. 17; special material) prescribe that women attending worship come without jewelry, do not wear their hair open, do not receive the Eucharist with their hair artificially curled, and refrain from talking and laughing during worship. Ambrose of Milan (died 397) warned virgins against sighing, clearing their throats, coughing, and laughing during the liturgy (De virginitate 3.3, 13). He addressed a similar request to women neophytes (De sacramentis 6.3, 15 and 17). In the same vein, Cyril of Jerusalem (died 386) admonished women catechumens to pray silently, that is, merely to move their lips in public prayer (Procatechesis 14). And repeatedly, early Christian sources encourage women to come to worship veiled. Since there were different ways of veiling, it is often unclear which particular form a particular author wanted to encourage or prescribe.[3]
It took centuries for the church to embrace and then to influence the broader culture with respect to the dignity and equality of women in the liturgy (more on which in section 9, below). That Christian women were too often treated as second-class members of the church is evident in the requirements often laid on them, but not the men, for church attendance and admission to the Eucharist.
What about Reformation era pastors and theologians? John Calvin, for example, understands “custom” (physis) in 11:14 to refer to cultural norms and not a transcendent, universal law evident in “nature.” There is some debate about Calvin. His commentary on 1 Corinthians seems to argue for head coverings as a universal mandate, but the last edition of the Institutes makes the practice an accommodation to cultural norms. Following Calvin’s discussion in his Institutes, the Reformed tradition largely thought (right or wrong) that head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 were about a first century “custom,” and therefore that apparel that distinguished between the sexes in their own day ought to be observed in church for proper decorum.
It may be helpful to quote from the 2001 report produced by the presbytery of the Reformed Presbytery in North America (RPNA). Here is a relevant portion of their report:
We do not deny that the cultural practice of Geneva was generally for women to wear a head covering in society and in public worship. This, however, is not at the heart of what we are seeking to ascertain. The question we are asking is whether the covenanted divines of Geneva understood the passage in 1 Corinthians 11 to be teaching that the head covering is a permanent moral sacred significant sign, or alternately, a culturally alterable circumstance.
Speaking of decorous arrangements which take away confusion in the church, Calvin says on page 1207 of Institutes Of The Christian Religion (Westminster Press edition):
There are examples of the first sort in Paul: that profane drinking bouts should not be mingled with the sacred supper of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:21-22), and that women should not go out in public with uncovered heads (1 Cor. 11:5).
After addressing matters related to proper order and decorum as mentioned above, Calvin goes on to say:
But because he [God] did not will in outward discipline and ceremonies what we ought to do (because he foresaw that this depended upon the state of the times, and he did not deem one form suitable for all ages), here we must take refuge in those general rules which he has given, that whatever the necessity if the church will require for order and decorum should be tested against these (Institutes Of The Christian Religion, Westminster Press, p. 1208, emphases added).
What is Calvin’s conclusion?
Lastly, because he [God— RPNA] has taught nothing specifically, and because these things are not necessary to salvation, and for the upbuilding of the church ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age, it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones (Institutes Of The Christian Religion, Westminster Press, p. 1208, emphases added).
If Calvin believed that the head covering was an unalterable law of God, in all times and circumstances, then why did he say it “ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age….” and that “…. it will be fitting (as the advantage of the church will require) to change and abrogate traditional practices and to establish new ones?” This is inexplicable except upon the presupposition that he understood 1 Corinthians 11 to be speaking from a cultural perspective. If the head covering is an unalterable law of modesty, then what do the “customs of each nation and age” have to do with the head covering?
There are some who would try to evade this conclusion by stating that Calvin was speaking here only of extraordinary times and situations when a woman may not be covered. We trust that all who read Calvin in context will easily ascertain that when he says the head covering “ought to be variously accommodated to the customs of each nation and age” he did not mean in extraordinary situations only. The customs of each nation and age are hardly extraordinary. In fact, it is because they are customs that we would class them as ordinary.
This section from the RPNA’s report illustrates the big problem with using historical arguments to bolster the argument for head coverings. Almost all Reformed and Lutheran churches taught that the church in her worship ought to respect each culture’s way of distinguishing between men and women.
This is why there is no mention of head coverings for women in any of the Reformation or post-Reformation era confessions, catechisms, and only scant mention in a few local church orders and directories for worship. And only then for cultural reasons. Reformed, Lutheran, and Catholic commentators and pastors assumed that women should wear a head covering in church if women wore them outside of church. If women wearing a head covering was the cultural custom distinguishing the sexes, then the church should recognize that.
Even so, there were exceptions in certain cultures. For example, in the French Reformed churches everybody, men and women, had to uncover to pray. In Scotland men had to cover to pray in church, because in that culture having a head covering for a man was a sign of his authority. All of this is consistent with the way most Reformed commentaries on 1 Corinthians 11 talk about conforming to the gender-specific customs of the day and not to a divine mandate.
9. Other Considerations
There’s another significant concern: Consider the importance of liturgical uniformity in the service. The assembly is not the place to parade our individual or family piety. I’m not accusing anyone of this, but when those who wear head coverings stand out in the congregation, it can easily be misunderstood by others. We should be unified in the liturgical assembly. We all stand together. We all lift hands together. We all kneel together. We all say the responses and sing together. There is a danger of division among those that cover and those that don’t. Even if the motivation of an individual or family is pure, the result may be a division in the church between the women who wear them and those who don’t. This has already caused confusion and concerns in our congregation, which is why the session had to make its statement.
Is there also a danger of division of men from women in the body of Christ? Whereas I believe gender distinctives ought not to be effaced in the liturgical assembly—men should dress and act like men and women like women—nevertheless, the women have the same equal access to God in prayer and praise. Husbands are not mediators for their wives in the worship service. Wives and women have their own access to God as individual members of the body of Christ. When it comes to prayer and praise, men and women, husbands and wives, are on equal footing in the assembly. There is no difference in status before, or access to, God.
For in Christ Jesus, you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you, as we were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:26–28)
10. Conclusion
Let me conclude with an admonition to charity. 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is a tough passage to decipher. If you are a bit confused at this point, you are not alone. Superficial readings of English translations will not uncover the problems with translating and interpreting this difficult portion of the letter. Most commentators admit as much, even as they try to ferret out Paul’s meaning. Here are some samples from commentaries on 1 Corinthians 11:
- “There is scarcely a passage in the New Testament which has so much taxed the learning and ingenuity of commentators as this. After all that has been written, it remains just as obscure as ever” (Charles Hodge).
- “This passage is probably the most complex, controversial, and opaque of any text of comparable length in the New Testament. A survey of the history of interpretation reveals how many different exegetical options there are for a myriad of questions” (Craig Blomberg).
- “More than any other passage in this letter, 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 presents severe problems for the interpreter. The first principle that should be applied in our readings of this text is the principle of hermeneutical honesty: we should never pretend to understand more than we do” (Richard B. Hayes).
- “The complexity of 11:2–16 continues to vex modern interpreters, and its comments about women rile many modern readers…The danger lurks that interpreters will try to make it say what they would like it to say” (David Garland).
- “The logic is obscure at best and contradictory at worst” (Robin Scroggs).
- “Along with these larger contextual questions, this passage is full of notorious, exegetical difficulties, including (1) the ‘logic’ of the argument as a whole, which in turn is related to (2) our uncertainty about the meaning of some absolutely crucial terms and (3) our uncertainty about prevailing customs, both in the culture(s) in general and in the church(es) in particular (including the whole complex question of early Christian worship) (Gordon Fee).
- “I have to admit that I didn’t understand this passage then, and I’m not sure I’ve understood it yet” (N.T. Wright).
Because I have backed off from an interpretation I held for almost 40 years, this sobers me to the fact that it’s not wise to take a hardline position on this passage. And don’t forget the variety of ways that these verses have been interpreted and applied in the history of the Reformed churches. This is outlined in the RPNA’s document “The Practice Of Headcoverings In Public Worship.”
Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is dominated by the concern for the unity of the local church. The letter began with the various factions claiming to “follow Paul” or “Apollos” or even “Christ.” Paul’s polemic repeatedly highlights the need for a unified community. So, here in 1 Corinthians 11:16, he rebukes those in the congregation that are being contentious about head coverings, and he wants the church to conform their practice to the other apostolic churches.
I do not believe that not wearing a head covering in church is a sign of an unsubmissive wife or woman. It is not disgraceful or shameful for a woman to worship with an uncovered head. Neither do I believe that women wearing them are somehow the “tip of the spear” in our battle against anti-Christian feminism in our culture. A godly, well-ordered marriage and household where husbands love their wives and wives submit to their husbands in the Lord is the answer to our culture’s perverted gender confusion. We would do well to emphasize that and not an uncommon practice grounded in a very opaque, highly disputed passage of Scripture.
[1] See, e.g., 1:12; 4:8; 5:1–2; 6:12–13; 7:1; 8:1–2; 11:19–22; 12:31; 14:26; 15:12, 35).
[2] For a very similar exposition of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, see Jason M. Garwood, Paul & The Head Covering: A Biblical Reassessment (Cross & Crown Books, 2026).
[3] Teresa Berger, “Women in Worship,” in The Oxford History of Christian Worship, ed. Geoffrey Wainwright and Karen B. Westerfield Tucker (Oxford University Press, 2006), 1220.