Project Description

2014/09

The Head Covering

This is a question that arises more frequently as other Christian denominations abandon the requirement. The short answer is: the Bible commands it. If we can show the truth of that assertion, we have an end of the matter as far as any true Christian is concerned because the Bible is our ultimate authority.

The Biblical basis for head covering is found in 1 Corinthians 11. Before we come to that, it may interest you to know that the overwhelming evidence is that ladies in the early church wore head covering. A number of the early Church Fathers mentioned women’s head coverings. Early Christian art also shows women wearing head coverings. Christians often aspire to be like the early church. That aspiration must then include ladies covering their heads in worship.

The abandonment of head covering is really a fairly modern phenomenon. Ladies wore head covering during the meetings of the church right up until the twentieth century. It was only during the last century that the practice of head covering gradually disappeared from many churches.

Among the Protestant reformers, Martin Luther encouraged wives to wear a veil in public worship. John Knox and John Calvin both called for women to wear head coverings in public worship. Other commentators who have advocated head covering during public worship include John Gill, Matthew Henry, C. H. Spurgeon, A. R. Fausset, A. T. Robertson, Harry A. Ironside and Charles Ryrie. In fact, until the 20th century, no Reformed theologian taught against head covering for women in public worship! So this is something that was universally accepted from the time of Paul right up to modern times.

Today there are those who claim to have new insights that mean the practice of all those centuries was wrong. If that is so, they must prove beyond any doubt that the received practice and teaching of the great theologians, Reformers and Church Fathers of the past, stretching back to the times of the Apostles, is wrong. More particularly, they need to be sure that they are not advocating an abandonment of something that is required by Scripture. I would rather be sure than take that chance: wouldn’t you?

But we can go further than a “better safe than sorry” basis by actually looking at the Scripture. 1 Corinthians 11: 4-5 says, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” That is plain! I would have to do a lot of explaining to explain that away. And I have to say that I would not abandon the plain meaning of Scripture on a whim to fit in with modern fashion. But there are those who try to do that.

Some Christians interpret the passage as a cultural mandate that was only for the first-century Corinthian church. They say that in Corinth decent Greek women wore head covering. That distinguished them from women who served as temple harlots, who did not cover their heads, and had short hair. Objectors then argue that Paul was making a local command to Corinthian Christian women to appear decent by wearing a head covering. But that whole argument is not based on fact. There is no evidence that Paul was seeking to distinguish Christian women from temple harlots with short hair. There is indeed no historical evidence showing that short hair was the distinguishing mark of a prostitute in Corinth during Roman times. The German scholar Albrecht Oepke concludes that when Paul asked the Greek women to cover their heads in worship, rather than imposing a Greek custom on local Christians, he was in fact imposing a biblical custom upon the Greeks that was contrary to their normal practice.  So if someone tells you that Paul was just urging the Corinthian women to fit in with what was decent in that day, you ought to question the basis of that assertion.

Others say that the woman’s hair is her covering. Indeed it says that in verse 15: “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering”. Yes the hair of a woman is a covering of her head, but it is obvious that Paul is arguing for another covering over the hair. To argue that the hair is all the covering a woman needs is a classic example of not taking the whole passage into account. If the hair is the covering that means that a man needs to shave all his hair off to be able to worship God, because the passage tells a man to worship uncovered! Then look at verse 6. If you say that long hair is the only covering a woman needs this verse becomes nonsensical. It would say, “If a woman did not have any hair on her head then her hair was to be cut off”. How can you cut off hair that somebody hasn’t got?

To argue that long hair for ladies is the covering would also be to assert the odd position that what is said to be the woman’s glory is also a symbol of submission.  This does not make sense. You have to go through too many exegetical hoops in order to say that the only covering needed for ladies is long hair. It is not the plain meaning of the text. As I say, if you are going to advocate the abandonment of centuries of Christian practice stretching back to the Apostles, you need to have a very good reason for doing so. The fact is there is no good reason! Therefore we have no option but to call on all women to obey the Scripture.

Dr Stephen Pollock.