Head Covering—Just a Tradition? (2)

The Headship of Christ

In our first article on the head covering of women, we saw that the wearing of a head covering is not a mere human tradition; it is an apostolic tradition. The apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, called upon the Christians in Corinth to be his followers even as he also was a follower of Christ. He praised them for keeping the ordinances as he had delivered them unto the churches. One of those ordinances concerned the head covering of women in public gatherings of the church.

In this article we will see that this head covering has something to do with the headship of Christ. Christ is the Head of the man. He also is the Head of the woman, but He exercises His headship over the woman in a special way. He does that through the man. Therefore, the headship of Christ, the headship of the man, and the head covering of the woman are three things that belong together. Let us see how the apostle proves this in 1 Corinthians 11:3-6.

Under God and Christ

It is very remarkable that Paul does not treat the topic of the head covering as something isolated, as a subject that has nothing to do with the heart of the Christian message and the source of the life of grace. He rather relates this topic to Christ, yea, to God Himself! That is how the apostle approached all lifestyle issues, and that is how he starts dealing with this issue as well. He first makes a foundational statement. “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (vs. 3).

Here is the order of headship: it is God—Christ—man—woman. God is the Head of Christ with respect to His human nature. As the Son of God Christ could say, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30). As Mediator and the Servant of the Lord He said, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). He submitted Himself to the Father. God is the Head of Christ. Christ, in turn, is the Head of the man. He wields dominion over the man. Every man has to bow under His authority. Christ is the Head of the man. The man, in turn, is the head of the woman (see also Ephesians 5:23). Therefore a woman is to wear a head covering when she comes to the gathering of God’s church.

Only for married women?

The apostle does not say that the man is the head of every woman. He says, “The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man.” In other words, a man should know his place when he meets the wife of someone else. She is under the authority of her own husband. On the other hand, Paul does not use a possessive pronoun as he does in Ephesians 5:28 (“their wives”), but he uses the definite article (“the woman”). Instead of saying, “The man is the head of his wife”, he says, “The man is the head of the woman.”

Therefore the custom of many Baptist churches in Russia and Ukraine to demand a head covering only for married women and not for unmarried girls and women is not warranted by the Scriptures. Paul refers to a Creation ordinance, universally applicable to all men and women and not merely to the relationships within marriage, applicable to husbands and wives only. Applied to the life of the church, the headship of the man means that a woman has no authority to teach or to lead. That applies to every woman, whether married or unmarried. She is to submit herself to that great Head, Christ, and—for Christ’s sake—also to that smaller head, the man. As a token of this submission she will wear a veil or head covering when “praying or prophesying.” Again, that applies to “every woman” (vs. 5).

Prophesying in the church?

Verse 5 may be a little puzzling at first sight. “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoured her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” Praying and prophesying in the church—was that really done by women in the church of Corinth? If yes, did the apostle approve of that? In chapter 14 of this same epistle he commands the women to be silent in the church (see vs. 34-35)!

John Calvin, therefore, believed that Paul was merely setting forth a hypothetical situation for the sake of clarity in the discussion. In reality the apostle would not have permitted such practices. Others, like Matthew Henry, allowed for an exception to this rule, considering that the gift of prophecy was still alive in those early days of the Christian church and that prophetic revelations through women are not to be equated with regular teaching by women. Again, others see in verse 5 a reference to gatherings of individual believers unlike the official gatherings of the church (see, for instance, Acts 21:9). This last opinion can hardly be supported in light of what we said in our first article. In 1 Corinthians 11-14 the apostle evidently deals with issues of the public worship service.

The best explanation seems to be the one pointing out that praying and prophesying can also be done in an indirect manner, for instance, when women in the worship service participate in singing (the Psalms of the Old Testament contained prophetic messages), when they silently pray along with a minister or elder, or when they listen to the prophetic ministry (the word of preaching) and may truly identify themselves with the truth presented therein.

All the same, the point emphasized by Paul is crystal clear. In the gatherings of God’s church a woman ought to cover her head. When she does not do so, she dishonors her own head, and when a man does cover his head, he is guilty of doing the same; he dishonors his head (vs. 4).

A disgrace to the head

A man should not cover his head during a worship service. He should not do so while praying or prophesying or while under the preaching and teaching. This is included in the word “prophesying.” From 1 Corinthians 14:3 we can learn that prophesying is not just foretelling the future. Rather, it means “speaking a word of edification, admonition, and comfort.” This is precisely what preaching is all about!

When a man would cover his head at such a time, he would dishonor his head. In other words, he would bring disgrace to his own head (literally understood) and to his spiritual Head Christ (figuratively understood). In God’s Word the covering of a man’s head is often associated with shame and grief or even with the judgment of God (e.g., see Jeremiah 14:3-4). When King David had to flee from Absalom, he “wept as he went, and had his head covered” (2 Samuel 15:30). In the gatherings of the church a man should not cover his head because he is the image and glory of God (vs. 7).

The woman, however, is the glory of the man. Therefore she should cover her head. If she does not do that she lifts herself up and dishonors her head. In other words, she brings disgrace to her own physical head and to her authoritative head, i.e., her husband (vs. 3). Thus, her physical head must be covered in the gatherings of the church.

Long hair as a covering?

At this point someone may argue, “But does a woman really need a head covering? Doesn’t she already possess one by nature? Doesn’t Paul himself say in verse 15 that the long hair of a woman is given her for a covering? Why then would she still need to put on a piece of cloth and so end up with two head coverings?”

These questions are raised by quite a few people in our day. At first sight their argument seems to carry weight. However, before addressing it I first want to make an observation. It has struck me on more than one occasion that those who press this argument are not consistent. If they would believe their own argument, they should also insist on women having long hair. Most of the time they do not. That smacks of dishonesty. It seems their argument is little more than an excuse to avoid the real sign of a woman’s submission—a head covering upon their natural head covering!

Having said that, I wish to give four reasons why their view cannot be accepted. First, the words “having his head covered” (KJV) is literally in the Greek “having down on the head.” Read Esther 6:12 and you will find out that this means more than just having hair on one’s head! Secondly, the Greek word for “cover” in verse 6 (“katakalupto”) and the Greek word for “covering” in verse 15 (“peri-bolaios”) are totally at variance. Paul chose these different words deliberately, not without good reasons! Thirdly, if the word “uncovered” in verse 5 would mean “not having hair”, verse 6 becomes completely senseless. Then the apostle would actually say: “For if the woman would have no hair, let her also be shorn.” What sense does it make to shear or shave a bald woman? The same reasoning applies to verse 4 in regard to the man. Fourthly, the early Christians understood Paul to be talking about a head covering in addition to the hair of the woman. Writings of early church fathers and sculptures in the Roman catacombs give ample evidence of that.

It is regrettable that the New International Version, by means of a footnote, has twisted the clear meaning of Paul’s argument. It is hard to understand how the scholars responsible for this translation delivered such poor exegesis at this point.

Uncovered is indecent?

Another argument sometimes used to rob the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11 of its meaning has to do with history and culture. Some people admit that Paul indeed wanted the women in Corinth to wear a special head covering. According to them this was because in those days a woman who appeared in public without such a covering was considered indecent or, even worse, a prostitute.

It is unfortunate for those presenting this argument that this cannot be proven. Yes, the veil was known in Corinth. Sometimes it was worn as an ornament; at other times it expressed grief (for instance, at a time of mourning) or dignity (for example, at a time of matchmaking or marrying). However, there was no obligation to wear a veil or head covering in public. This custom was practiced in places like Tarsus and areas farther to the east. But a compulsory covering of head and face as known in countries today where Islamic fundamentalism holds sway was something unknown in ancient Greece!

Not bound to any culture!

Others state that heathen women in Greece worshiped their gods with covered heads or veiled faces. Thus it would be very improper for female Christian converts to discard their veils and appear bareheaded in the Christian assemblies. This argument seems to convey the idea that the wearing of a head covering is merely a cultural issue. In other words, Christian women who live in a different culture with other values and norms would no longer be bound to the apostle’s injunction.

The danger of such reasoning is that very soon most teachings of the Bible, including those on homosexual practices, et cetera, will be seen as culturally determined. At the end of the day everyone may interpret God’s Word the way he or she likes it. However, even at this point the advocates of this view are not consistent. If Paul would mean that head coverings have to be worn only in particular cultures, why do many female missionaries from Western countries not adapt themselves to, for instance, African cultures where Christian women would never come to church without a head covering and Muslim women would never appear in public without a veil?

The question remains whether or not it is really true that Greek women went to their pagan temples with a head covering. The answer to this question is “No!” Research shows that among the Greeks both men and women worshiped with the head uncovered. Among the Romans it was just the opposite; both men and women worshiped with the head covered. The Jews took a middle position; men worshiped with the head covered while women did not. In other words, the Apostle Paul did not endorse or condone one particular culture. He gave instruction the way he had received it from the Lord; and he gave that instruction everywhere, regardless of existing local or national customs. Christian tradition at all times is bound to clash with non-Christian culture. Yet, God’s Word is not bound to time or place. Jehovah’s truth will stand forever! Do we live according to this truth?

— Rev. C. Sonnevelt
Lethbridge, AB

— to be continued —

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen