Whether Paul’s instructions regarding head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 apply to modern-day worship is both theologically significant and practically challenging. This passage has sparked debate among scholars and church leaders, particularly considering contemporary cultural shifts in gender roles, authority, and expressions of worship. This debate touches on broader issues of biblical hermeneutics, the role of tradition, and the church’s navigation of the intersection between scriptural authority and modern societal values. The Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), while adhering strictly to Paul’s teachings on male ordination, does not mandate the wearing of head coverings for women in worship. This essay argues that Paul’s command in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is not merely a cultural directive but a theologically grounded instruction based on creation order, and thus, it remains relevant today. Furthermore, this essay will address common objections, including the uniqueness of this command in Scripture and the argument that women’s hair serves as a covering, showing why head coverings in worship should be encouraged as an expression of biblical submission and order.

The Biblical Basis for Head Coverings

Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 have often been misunderstood as culturally specific, applying only to the context of the Corinthian church. However, a close examination of the text reveals that Paul’s directive is rooted in the creation order and the principles of divine headship, making it relevant for all Christian worship contexts.

In 1 Corinthians 11:3, Paul states, “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” Here, Paul establishes a hierarchy of authority that is not contingent on cultural practices but is grounded in the very nature of creation and the relationships within the Godhead. This headship principle is crucial to understanding the subsequent verses, where Paul discusses the visible symbols of this authority—namely, head coverings.

Paul continues in verses 4–6, saying, “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife 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.” Paul clearly distinguishes between men and women regarding appropriate conduct during worship, explicitly referring to head coverings as a sign of authority and submission.

The Distinction Between Head Coverings and Other Coverings

One of the critical arguments against head coverings is the claim that a woman’s hair is given as a sufficient covering, rendering an additional veil or cloth unnecessary. This argument is often based on verse 15, where Paul says, “but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” However, a closer exegetical analysis reveals that Paul is not equating hair with the head covering he prescribes earlier in the passage.

Firstly, the Greek word for “covering” (περιβόλαιον) in verse 15 is different from the word used earlier in the passage (κατακαλύπτω). The term “περιβόλαιον” refers to something that wraps around, like a mantle or veil, which suggests that the hair is not the same kind of covering that Paul mentions in verses 5–6. This distinction in terminology indicates that Paul views the head covering as something separate from and additional to a woman’s hair.

Secondly, Paul’s argument in verses 5–6 implies that if a woman refuses to cover her head, it is as dishonorable as if she were to shave her head. This rhetorical statement highlights that the covering Paul refers to is not the hair itself but an external covering that signifies submission and respect during worship. The hair, while glorious, is a natural covering that complements but does not substitute for the symbolic head covering Paul prescribes.

Historical Practice and Its Theological Significance

The historical continuity of the practice of head coverings in the Christian church further supports its significance. From the early church through the Reformation and into the 20th century, head coverings were widely practiced by Christian women during worship. This practice was not limited to specific denominations or regions but was a universal expression of modesty, respect, and acknowledgment of divine order.

Chrysostom strongly advocated for women to wear head coverings, interpreting Paul’s instructions as reflecting divine order and authority rather than following mere cultural custom. In his homilies on 1 Corinthians, Chrysostom emphasized that head coverings signify a woman’s submission to God’s established order, rooted in the creation narrative and the distinct roles of men and women.

While Chrysostom’s interpretation underscores the theological grounding of head coverings in divine order and creation, James B. Hurley approaches the issue from a historical perspective, arguing that the early church’s widespread adoption of this practice further emphasizes its significance. Hurley claims that the early church’s universal acceptance of head coverings underscores their importance in maintaining decorum and order in worship. The abandonment of this practice in the 20th century reflects not a theological shift but a cultural one, influenced by the rise of individualism and changing views on gender roles.

Addressing the Uniqueness of Paul’s Command

A significant challenge to head coverings is the observation that this command appears only in 1 Corinthians 11. In contrast, instructions regarding male ordination are found throughout the New Testament. This raises the question: if head coverings were significant, why are they not mentioned elsewhere?

The answer lies in understanding the nature of Paul’s epistles and the specific issues he addresses within different congregations. While head coverings are explicitly mentioned in 1 Corinthians, the principles underlying Paul’s instruction are themes that permeate his other writings. The practice of wearing head coverings is one specific application of these broader principles, acknowledging divine order and the expression of submission. It is tailored to the cultural context of the Corinthian church but applicable wherever these principles are at stake.

Furthermore, the singularity of this command does not diminish its importance. Scripture often contains specific instructions tailored to particular circumstances, but these instructions still carry weight for the broader Christian community when grounded in timeless theological principles. Just as the instructions for male ordination are rooted in creation order and the distinct roles of men and women, so, too, is the command for head coverings based on the same theological framework.

The Practical Application of Head Coverings Today

Encouraging the practice of wearing head coverings today involves understanding its biblical and historical foundations while addressing the cultural and theological objections that have led to its decline. One common objection is the perceived legalism in mandating head coverings. However, encouraging head coverings should not be seen as a legalistic imposition but rather as an invitation to embrace a biblical principle that honors God’s design for relationships and worship modeled after the Trinity.

Another objection is the belief that head coverings are an outdated cultural practice that is irrelevant to modern believers. However, as discussed, Paul’s grounding of this practice in creation order and divine authority transcends cultural shifts, making it a practice that still holds meaning for Christians today. The decline of head coverings in the 20th century is more reflective of changing cultural norms than a reevaluation of biblical principles.

In light of these considerations, modern theological discourse supports the revival of head coverings as a meaningful practice in worship. In “Is Headcovering Biblical?” David Silversides argues that head coverings are a visible reminder of the created order and the distinct roles of men and women. Wearing them promotes a biblical worldview in a culture that often blurs these distinctions, invalidating the cultural argument entirely. Silversides’ argument aligns with the broader biblical narrative that upholds the distinct roles of men and women as part of God’s good creation.

Encouraging head coverings in contemporary worship is not about enforcing an external practice but fostering a deeper understanding and conformity to the Word of God. It is about helping believers symbolically express their submission to God’s order and acknowledge the distinct roles that men and women play in worship. While the PCA does not mandate head coverings, nor should it, encouraging this practice could reinforce the church’s commitment to upholding biblical gender roles and maintaining the order that Paul envisioned for Christian worship.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Paul’s instructions regarding head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 are rooted in the creation order and the principles of divine headship, making them relevant for contemporary worship. This practice serves not merely as a cultural artifact but as a symbol deeply intertwined with biblical themes of submission and respect. While the command is singular in its appearance within the New Testament, its theological grounding within the broader biblical narrative lends it enduring significance.

Reaffirming this practice today offers the church a unique opportunity to bear witness to the timeless authority of Scripture. By encouraging the revival of head coverings, the church can uphold the principles of submission, order, and respect that Paul outlines, demonstrating a commitment to biblical principles in a way that transcends mere tradition. Rather than a legalistic imposition, this practice invites believers to embrace a biblical posture that honors God’s Word and reflects the church’s countercultural witness in a rapidly changing world.  

Bibliography

Brown, A. Philip II. “Chrysostom and Epiphanius: Long Hair Prohibited as Covering in 1 Corinthians 11:4, 7.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 23, no. 3 (2013): 365–76.

Chrysostom, John. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 1st ser, Vol. 12. Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the First Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. Edited by Philip Schaff. Translated by Hubert Kestell Cornish, John Medley, and Talbot B. Chambers. New York, NY: Christian Literature Company. 1889.

Hurley, James B. “Did Paul Require Veils or the Silence of Women? A Consideration of 1 Cor. 11:2–16 and 1 Cor. 14:33b–36.” Westminster Theological Journal 35, no. 2 (1972): 190–220.

Mangum, Douglas, ed. Lexham Context Commentary: New Testament. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2020.

Silversides, David. “Is Headcovering Biblical?” Semper Reformanda (blog). Accessed July 6, 2024. https://www.semperreformanda.com/the-regulative-principle-of-worship/the-regulative-principle-of-worship-articlesindex/is-headcovering-biblical-by-d-silversides/.

Tags: Gender roles Head covering