Introduction
In today’s modern world, anything that differentiates men and women is condemned. However, God’s word is clear that men and women, by nature, fulfill different roles in the church, family, and civil spheres of life, contrary to the feminist worldview. Even the more conservative branches of Christianity fail to observe the commands of the Apostle Paul about head coverings in church. With this article, I will specifically address head coverings in the church setting which Paul commends the Corinthian church for in 1 Corinthians 11. An exposition of the text will show that head coverings were not cultural but a command for the Christian church at all times. I will also respond to the many arguments against the use of head coverings and provide historical support for the use of head coverings. From these arguments and the lack of good argumentation against them, the commands to the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 11 concerning head coverings apply to the church today will be proved.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16
In context, the first canonical letter to the Corinthian church is filled with many rebukes against the wrongdoings of the Corinthians. However, one of the works Paul commends the church for was their use of head coverings. The first half of chapter eleven addresses head coverings while the second half rebukes the church for abuses of the Lord’s Supper which is in the context of church gatherings. Paul spends three-hundred words on head coverings and three-hundred and ninety-six words on the Lord’s Supper (I say this to show that if Paul uses almost as much time on head coverings as the Lord’s Supper [a God-ordained sacrament] then we should pay attention). Paul starts by commending the Corinthians for observing what he has commanded them to do. Then, in verses 3-15, Paul gives theological reasons for why he commands men to pray and prophesy (teach) uncovered and women to pray and prophesy covered. Paul is clear that women should not lead prayer or teach in a church service (1 Timothy 2:12) but they are permitted to teach other women and children (1 Timothy 5:16; Titus 2:3-4). Starting his argumentation, Paul appeals to the federal headship of Christ over man and the federal headship of a husband over his wife (cf. Ephesians 5:22-33). This is not a cultural appeal but rather a theological truth that transcends culture. He uses this to show that head coverings for women symbolize their submission to the husband’s authority over her which is why the man ought to be uncovered. Secondly, he introduces another argument that appeals to creation before the fall (sin had not entered the world). Because man is immediately the image and glory of God, he should not cover himself since we should display God’s glory. However, because woman was made from man and for man, woman is the glory of man; and therefore, mediatorial the image and glory of God, rather than immediately. So then, women should cover to not display man’s glory since all glory belongs to God (yet again not a cultural argumentation but rather a theological one). Paul also makes an interesting statement in verse ten, saying “because of the angels.” I honestly do not know what this means and is rightly called obscure since Paul does not explain it. Whatever this means, yet again, Paul uses argumentation that transcends culture. Finally, he makes an appeal to nature, yet again an argument that transcends culture (hopefully you’re getting the point). Nature refers to the innate sense of man which applies to all people at all times. The Apostle says that it is against nature for a man to have long hair and a disgrace for women to have short hair and says that the glory of a woman is her long hair which is given to her for a covering. People jump on this verse and say there you have it, long hair is the covering; however, this is completely false which will be shown in the response to objections. So, Paul uses three main arguments; creational order, angels, and nature, all preeminent to culture.
Historical Support
The use of head coverings is not foreign to the early church; instead, it is a common practice, following the apostolic command. John Chrysostom (one of the most important exegetes, 4th century) says about 1 Corinthians 11, “Wherefore also having said, Every woman that prays or prophesies with her head unveiled, dishonors her head, he stayed not at this point only, but also proceeded to say, for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. But if to be shaven is always dishonorable, it is plain too that being uncovered is always a reproach. And not even with this only was he content, but added again, saying, The woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.” Irenaeus of Lyons (2nd century) says, “Again, the coming of the Savior with His attendants to Achamoth is declared in like manner by him in the same Epistle, when he says, “A woman ought to have a veil upon her head, because of the angels.” Tertullian of Carthage (2nd-3rd century) says, “If you demand a divine law, you have that common one prevailing all over the world, written on the tablets of nature, to which also St. Paul is accustomed to appeal. Thus he says concerning the veiling of women: “Does not nature teach you this?” Again, in saying in his letter to the Romans that the Gentiles do by nature what the law prescribes, he hints at the existence of natural law and a nature founded on law.” Chrysostom makes another comment saying, “To oppose this teaching is contentiousness, which is irrational. The Corinthians might object, but if they do so, they are going against the practice of the universal church.” Also, John Calvin, John Wesley, Martin Luther, John Bunyan, William Tyndale, John Knox, Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, and finally A.W. Pink make similar comments in support of the use of head coverings. The historical evidence shows that head coverings were a common practice throughout church history.
Objection
Many people will object saying that women having long hair is the covering Paul speaks of (verse 15). However, this is rendered ridiculous if it is plugged back into the text. Replacing head covering for long hair and uncovered for short hair, verses 5-6 would say, “but every wife who prays or prophesies with her [short hair] dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not [have long hair], then she should cut her hair short.” If her hair is short as if it is short? Well of course. If she will not have long hair, then she should cut her hair short? Her hair would already be short if it was short. This objection renders Paul’s phraseology useless. Some will say that this was a cultural command for the church; however, hopefully, you see how this objection ignores all of Paul’s argumentation, as shown in the exposition of the text. Moreover, some will say that the principles remain but the symbols change. This is also false because if the symbols change then the principle that they signified would change. It would no longer have the indication of federal headship if the coverings were removed. Also, since when do we change the symbols Scripture commands? Do we change the symbol of baptism? Do we change the symbol of wine (well apparently we do today but I digress) and bread in the Lord’s Supper? What gives us fallible creatures the right to change what God-given and infallible authority instituted? Finally, others will say that throughout Scripture some men had long hair without sinning, such as Samson, who was commanded by God to not cut his hair. Another circumstance in Scripture is analogous to this. In Isaiah 20:2-4, God commands the prophet Isaiah to walk around naked for three years. Does that mean I can walk around naked for three years? Of course not. There are extraordinary circumstances where God commands with a specific purpose things that are not normative to all of God’s people. As shown, the objections against the use of head coverings either render Paul an idiot or downright change what Scripture commands.
Conclusion
Hopefully, I have shown through exegesis and historical support that Paul’s command to the Corinthian church concerning head coverings applies to the church today. Paul’s argumentation for head coverings transcends culture so we should not try to force them back into culture. Paul displays beautiful theological truths that we as Christians should submit to, for it is the Word of God. This would not be introducing a new practice into the church but rather reintroducing a common historical practice of the church. As Christians, we submit to God’s Word as the ultimate rule for our life. It is our duty to obey it whether we like it or not. Finally, some will say this is legalistic and is a small thing that needs not be discussed. However, Jesus Christ does not hold this view. He rebukes the Pharisees for neglecting the weightier matters of the law (Matthew 23:23). But he also says that they should do these things without neglecting the others. Christ is clear that we should submit our life to the whole law of God, whether big or small. It is never legalistic to obey God.