The Biblical Case Against Head CoveringsBy Sam Morris
This teaching supposedly comes from 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 where the Apostle Paul is using the examples of Creation and natural order to guide believers in the truth of headship or authority. Ultimately, this text reveals that length of hair is an issue regarding headship and the natural order of things in God’s Creation. It seems that many pastors ignore the subject of a woman “covering” her head because it is considered to be a controversial issue, or perhaps the pastor just does not understand the text himself. This then becomes a lose-lose situation for the pastor because he will be somewhat handcuffed when it comes to teaching on the subject of head coverings. If he is FOR them, he will offend those that see the woman’s hair as being given as her covering (verse 15), but if he is AGAINST them he will offend those that believe the “covering” is an additional garment. Many times pastors avoid the subject entirely because of this. The bigger issue still is when the pastor takes an, “It’s up to the individual’s conscience,” position. Why? Because the head covering, when worn at church, now becomes sort of a gauntlet that is thrown down and lines begin to divide among the members. The members will usually run to the Old Testament law to search for the teachings on a woman’s head being covered for public worship, but will find no such teaching in Scripture. Those with garment coverings are usually labeled, “Pharisee,” by those without garment coverings and those without the garment covering will be seen as licentious by those wearing an outer covering. Is this the picture of the unity that is supposed to be the mark of love and fidelity in a church? I think not. If we are not in unity, doesn’t this negatively affect the Lord’s Table, the most solemn and important observance of a local Baptist church? My motive behind this work is to see God’s people grow in the Word of God. I pray this little pamphlet will be a blessing to every reader as the Bible is exclusively used to teach the truth. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32
As Baptists, our ONLY authority is the Bible, the Word of
the living God to all of mankind!
Knowing that,
“…no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation,” (2 Peter 1:20), we look to the Bible, in
the common vernacular, to interpret itself and to provide clear
teaching.
We do not run to the Greek translations. “Scholars” with their lexicons will observe that the word “covering” in verse 15 is a different word than the other word used for “covering” in the other verses of the text. Instead of taking God at His Word, they seem to seek a loophole to support their own position. Scripture is inspired (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not Greek lexicons! These two Greek words, however, are simply synonyms: “one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses.” – Merriam-Webster.com. The English language uses synonyms all the time. Faith and Believe and also Repent and Turn are just a couple of examples of interchangeable words from the Bible. I think it is interesting that many pastors and Bible teachers run straight to the Greek, but couldn’t even quote John 3:16 or order a meal in that language! We do not appeal to the older English versions. “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” According to this promise, our King James Bible has been purified seven times (this leads us to a separate study)! Why would I seek that which has been purified three times, or five times when I can use that which has been purified seven times?! History is valuable, but still it is not our Authority. They teach that this practice changed in the early 20th Century as compromise set-in. So, I went to the Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online and found some interesting quotes. Here are some of the quotes concerning head coverings from these Mennonites themselves: “Utilizing Richard Detweiler's Princeton study (1966), Kraybill (1987) summarizes Mennonite history of woman's veiling as: 1525-1865: symptom stage, with no distinctive religious significance given to women's headcoverings; 1866-1910: stabilized sign, with preachers appealing to 1 Corinthians 11:1-16; 1910-1950: veiling frozen as bonafide religious symbol; 1950-present: disintegrating legitimacy of the veiling as a religious symbol.” Also, we’ve all heard the old axiom: “He who wins the wars writes the history books.” Most of the “church history” available to us today has been written by Catholics and Protestants which through the ages were responsible for over 50 million faithful martyrs over their doctrinal beliefs. They tortured and murdered those of a purely Biblical faith also known today as the Baptist people along with their writings. No Thanks, I’ll just stick with the old Book! Appealing to “Tradition” usually leads us away from the Truth as well. The man is to have his head uncovered according to 1 Corinthians 11:4, but the High Priest and others constantly wore some type of hat or turban when worshiping. The Old Testament Law is silent on the subject of women wearing head coverings. The moral law is that which expresses God’s character and does not change such as His attitude concerning marriage, sin, sodomy, etc. God does not instruct us concerning the issue of external garment coverings for a woman’s hair anywhere in the Bible. I believe there are no teachings concerning garment head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 either. Commentaries may be useful, but are not our authority. They are guided by their Reformed platform and bring to us non-truths such as Universal Church theory, Spirit Baptism theory, Open Communion heresy, and are Ecumenical in their writings. Simply put, these cannot be trusted concerning church doctrine or polity. The Lord did not write the Scriptures to confuse us. The answer is right before us if we’ll just look to Him and His Word instead of running to these other sources! So then, we can definitely know what the Apostle Paul means by the word, “covering!” We now turn to the text. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 says, 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 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. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 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. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” In order for us to keep this a short work, we must approach this text in what I believe to be its three natural and simplest divisions:
An Introduction The Mennonites and some others believe that an external hair covering for women is an ordinance. They differentiate between the “gospel” ordinances and the “apostolic” ordinances. According to them, the “gospel” ordinances are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper while the “apostolic” ordinances are Head Coverings, Foot-washing, Greeting one another with a Holy Kiss, Anointing with Oil and Marriage. Baptists, as the executors of the Kingdom of Christ, believe that the Lord Jesus only issued two ordinances and that these two, which are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, were given to His church during His earthly ministry. In other words these are “church” ordinances, not “gospel” ordinances which, by definition, will lead to ecumenical practices. Also, any one of these supposed “apostolic” ordinances can be practiced anywhere and are not limited to the local church in their scope as the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and thereby do not qualify as ordinances. Three Additional Truths Concerning Ordinances: The ordinances apply to EVERY member of the body (local church). For a saved person to become a member of the church, they must be baptized. This applies to all who would desire to join a local Baptist assembly. When it comes to the Lord’s Supper, it is the goal of every member to be at the table as one unified body. The so-called ordinance of garment head coverings for women only applies to the female members of the congregation. This therefore cannot be an ordinance! The ordinances are Descriptive. In Baptism, we see the mode, the authority, the means, etc. In the Lord’s Supper we are given the elements, motivations and such. When it comes to garment head coverings for women, we have absolutely no biblical guidance. We have not been given the size, shape or material for these “coverings.” Obviously this is so obscure because this is not an ordinance! Even worse, I believe, is that we as Baptists have to consult a cult (any works-salvationists such as the Mennonites, Amish, etc.) to learn how these head coverings are made and worn. Garment head coverings for women are definitely not an ordinance. The ordinances have a Definite Order. After salvation a person is Baptized into the church and now has access to the Lord’s table. It is the definite order of biblical church polity. When should a woman start to wear her garment head covering? Is it from her youth? At her salvation? After her baptism? Should she wear it at all times, or just for worship? We are not told because this practice is not an ordinance! Simply put, Paul is reminding us that there is an order of things in the universe. Christ is the head of all men and men are to contextually be the head of women. This is not necessarily an order of importance or ability because, as we’ve already seen in Galatians 3:28, ALL have equal ground with the Lord in worship and redemption. In the marriage (Ephesians 5) and at the local church (1 Corinthians 14; 1 Timothy 2:11; 1 Peter 3:1), there is an order which the Lord demands in order to keep all things done decently (1 Corinthians 14:40) and without confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). This is the subject of another study, but also we will see that the Lord is teaching us here that the way we wear our hair is a sign of our willingness to worship, or to rebel, or are perhaps ignorant concerning these things. Verses 7-12 of our text are used to support the theme of verse 3, so we will provide no extra commentary on these verses with the exception of verse 10: The word “power” is the same word for “authority.” This is another statement concerning the submission of women. The interesting point in this verse, however, is the phrase, “because of the angels.” Here are a few interesting thoughts taken from David Cloud at Wayoflife.org as he also uses Scripture as his authority for interpreting these verses: “It means that proper order should be maintained in the churches as an instruction and encouragement to angels. The angels are ministering to, beholding, even learning from the churches. See 1 Cor. 4:9; Eph. 3:10; 1 Tim. 5:21; Heb. 1:14; 1 Pet. 1:12.” “It is possible that angels are tempted by rebellion. We know that certain angels followed Satan in his rebellion against God (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 12:7-9). It is possible that for women to refuse to humble themselves to assume the earthly position God has given them under male headship and for them to refuse to wear the mark of such submission on their head, meaning their long hair, is a temptation to angels who are observing these things.” 5 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. Here is where the pretense begins. Does this verse say that there is an external garment covering? Do we get from these verses a garment that can be put-on and removed at will? Is the Lord telling us that, if a woman does not wear an outer cloth-made garment on her head that He sees her as bald-headed (shaven)? Many believe that these verses are teaching these things, but let me say that this is all pretentious! There is no interpretation concerning a garment covering in these verses. As a matter of fact, we have a verse in the context which tells us exactly what this covering is. Look at verse 15! her hair is given her for a covering. According to the Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, the word “covering” means: “Spreading over; laying over; concealing; vailing; clothing; wrapping; inclosing; protecting; disguising.” Does not the plain common meaning burst through here? The Bible tells us that a woman’s long hair is given to her for a, “Spreading over; laying over; concealing; vailing; clothing; wrapping; inclosing; protecting; disguising,” of her head! Again, if we will just stay with the Scriptures we will find the truth. We did not have to search anywhere else or perform any interpretive gymnastics to be able to understand what the Lord is telling us here: women should have long hair and men should have short hair. Paul Addresses the Men – Verses 4, 7 & 14 Notice that there is no definition provided for the word, “covered.” So do we now go to the commentaries and Greek lexicons? No, we simply look at verse 14 which is right in our context. This verse tells us that it is a “shame” which is a synonym of “dishonoreth” for a man to have long hair. It is now time to address a very important and instructive truth: The verses before us are telling us that the covering applies to the man or woman’s “head,” not their “hair.” Keep this truth in mind as we continue with our verse-by-verse study. The phrase, “ought not,” means that the man has a choice of whether he should cover his head or not. This is obvious, according to the context (vs 14), that he is to keep his hair short. We have to interject our own meaning to make this verse refer to some type of removable head covering such as a hat. Also, if this were the case, that a man should not cover his head, then men could never wear ball caps, helmets or fishing hats. Only the women could do that. If an outer covering on a man’s head is sinful, then what is the since of Paul’s commanding us to “put on” the “helmet of salvation” in Ephesians Chapter 6? Or is this command, which we believe to be an example of Spirit-filling, only for women? Some will say that the man should not have this outer covering when worshiping or praying. That would really be nonsensical because Paul, the same writer of the text at hand, told us to put on the helmet. Is the Apostle using sinful actions to demonstrate the spiritual? I think not. If we will look to the context of 1 Corinthians 11 and acknowledge that Paul is addressing hair length, we will not get bogged down into these kinds of interpretive quagmires. We can now see clearly what Paul is saying. He’s not talking about a removable covering, but the man’s own hair. Another way to prove this is by looking at the case of the woman in verse 15. Both verses are talking about hair, but they are opposites. Men are to have short hair (no covering over his head), and women are to have long hair (given for a covering over her head). The covering discussed for the man in this chapter, according to Scripture, cannot refer to a garment or hat. In Ezekiel 44:17-20, we find that the High Priest is to minister with his “linen bonnet” on his head. If a man that is wearing a removable head covering is a sin, then the High Priest was taught to sin by God Himself because the priest was instructed by Him to do so! Also it is interesting that he is to have short hair (vs 20)! In Ezekiel 24:17, we find that Ezekiel himself was ordered to prophesy (1 Cor 11:4) while wearing a turban (tire of his head). In Daniel 3:21, we see where the three Hebrews known as Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were thrown into the fiery furnace wearing their hats. Later we find the Son of God in the fire with them but there is no mention of them removing their hats in His presence. Men are to have short hair because it glorifies God! The gender lines will then be very clear. A brief comparison of this chapter to Romans Chapter One by the reader reveals to us that the natural can easily become unnatural, which leads ultimately to sodomy. A man with long hair is rebellious. In Daniel 4:33, we see where Nebuchadnezzar had refused to give God glory and he was lifted up with pride. We find that one of the fruits of his rebellion was, “… hairs… grown like eagles’ feathers.” A man with long hair potentially reveals demonic influence. In Revelation Nine we hear of the demons that will be let out of hell during the tribulation. One of their distinguishing marks is that they have, “…hair as the hair of women…” (Rev 9:8). Why would the Apostle Paul use the word, “covering,” when referring to the man’s hair? Doesn’t this fact make the text hard to be understood? In Acts 17:28, the Apostle Paul quotes a Greek philosopher which is believed to be Chrysostom (40-120 AD). If the Apostle can refer to this man, I can too. Chrysostom, a lost man, who was an advocate for long hair on men, also had this to say: Farmers wear long hair without ever having heard the word, “philosophy.” And by Zeus, most barbarians wear long hair, some for a COVERING and some because they believe it to be becoming. But what cap can be more suitable than a man’s own hair?” From this we can easily see that the word, “covering,” was common lingo for long hair in the Apostle Paul’s day. The Scriptures will always interpret themselves if we will simply search them. Verse 14 makes it clear that the Apostle is speaking about hair length. Once again, we had to look no further than God’s Book for the meaning of these verses. Paul Addresses the Women – Verses 5-7, 13 & 15 If the “covering” we’ve seen previously in this chapter is referring to the hair on a man, shouldn’t the same be true for a woman? Especially since verse 15 tell us that her hair was given to her for a covering? 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. In verse five we see that the “Head” is to be covered, not the “hair!” The Lord is simply telling us that a woman’s hair is to be long so it can veil, cover, surround… her head. We do not find where she is to cover her hair, but her head. According to verse 15, we see that this is accomplished with her God-given long hair. We also meet with a very interesting comparison: Being uncovered is seen as equal to being shaven and not to being naked. Wouldn’t a woman that is missing a crucial garment be called, “naked?” But she is referred to here as being, “shaven,” because Paul is discussing her hair and not an outer garment. In verse six we discover that there are three possible lengths of hair: 1. Long Hair. By definition, this is her covering (verse 15). 2. Short Hair. The word “shorn,” is a synonym of “polled,” which describes a man’s haircut.
Ezekiel 44:20
Webster’s 1828 Dictionary: 3. Shaven: This means to cut-off all of the hair, down to the skin, whether it be in part or entirety.
Webster’s1828 Dictionary: In verse seven it becomes quite clear that the woman is to cover her head because she is the glory of the man. Notice again, however, that the verse says her head is to be covered and not her hair. According to verse 15, her long hair is given her for the purpose of covering her head. 1 Corinthians 11:13 Some folks will attempt to get a removable garment out of this “covering.” This is impossible whenever this verse is joined with the rest of the context. Could this verse possibly mean that a woman should be ashamed of having short hair, especially in the church and in front of the angels? I believe that this interpretation carries much more credence than the idea of a removable head covering. I also believe that the text clearly bears this out without any further commentary. 1 Corinthians 11:15 The entire text’s interpretation hinges on verse 15. Let’s now consider 3 thoughts concerning this verse that should help answer some of the objections and to clear-up any controversy: 1. Many would say, “Yes, I agree that her hair is given to her for a covering, but not for the covering,” therefore the woman requires an additional, outer covering. To make an issue over the use of the word, “a” as opposed to, “the,” is a stretch to say the least. This approach also reveals how far some are willing to go to avoid the obvious interpretation proved within the text which is supported by the rest of the Bible: that the woman’s covering was provided by the Lord Himself. According to the context, this covering is her long hair (vs 15). Here’s an example concerning the usage of “a” as opposed to “the:” the phrase “an atonement” is seen 59 times in the Bible. We see it only in the Old Testament. The phrase, “the atonement” appears once in the New Testament. Many preachers would say that there is proof that the Old Testament sacrifices were for “an” atonement, but Jesus is “the” atonement, to which I would completely agree concerning the theology. However, the phrase, “the atonement” is also seen in the Old Testament, five times to be exact, and it refers to Old Testament sacrifices all five times. This means that the terms can be interchanged without any theological ramifications as long as Christ gets the glory. Also, if I were to stand in the foyer of the church building and hand-out cloth head coverings to the women who enter, I would naturally say, “Here’s a covering,” or, “Here’s your covering,” but it would seem very odd for me to say, “Here’s the covering.” I also believe that the text bears-out that a woman should always be covered. The only way that this can be possible is by the woman having long hair. At some point, a woman will have to remove a garment covering, but by having long hair, she is always covered in the eyes of mankind, the angels and the Lord. So, in that light, it is “the” (one and only) covering for her head. 2. I have heard some interpreters say that a woman should cover her hair because it is glorious, and that no one should receive glory in worship other than God. Here again is a stretch through an attempt to spiritualize this passage instead of holding to a literal interpretation. The Bible gives us many examples of our gracious God “giving” people some type of glory wherein He Himself is glorified by its use: Psalms 8:5 crowned him with glory and honour. We can clearly see that the Lord gave man a certain kind of glory with which He Himself is to be honored and glorified. The simplest meaning of the verse above is that man is of a higher order than animals, but is lower than the angels, and has a unique glory, as do the animals and angels, given him to glorify His God in a specific manner. Here are a few more examples: Psalms 30:12 my glory may sing praise to thee, and not be silent. O LORD my God, I will give thanks unto thee for ever. Romans 5:3 we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 2 Corinthians 3:18 glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. Proverbs 17:6 the glory of children are their fathers. When it comes to the distinguishing glories between men and women, our passage reveals that the man gives God glory by his head and the woman brings glory to God by her hair. NEITHER SHOULD BE COVERED because the Lord Himself receives glory, honor and worship because of these facts. This has to be the simplest way in the world to obey God… to merely wear the appropriate hair length! Simply put, a man glorifies God through his headship and therefore should never cover his head with long hair. The woman glorifies God by her subjection which is signified by her long hair. Because of this, she should never cover her hair. Her hair has been provided by God to cover her head. Ezekiel 16:7 reveals that a woman is considered to be bare when her hair is not long. This example does not teach that a woman is bare when some sort of veil is removed: Ezekiel 16:7 thy breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou wast naked and bare. 3. If it is a sin for a woman to have her hair uncovered, then the Lord Jesus had to either rebuke Mary or He participated in her sin. Mary, the sister of Martha, is seen wiping the feet of Jesus with her own hair. As a matter of fact, it is recorded in Scripture that she did this at least two times (compare Luke 7:38 to John 11:2 and see also John 12:3). I have never personally witnessed anyone worshiping the Lord at this glorious of a level! I’ve not seen anyone so submitted and humbled, including myself! The plain fact of the matter is, if her hair was covered, she would have had to uncover it in order to complete this task. The Lord Jesus did not rebuke her for her actions. As a matter of fact, He stood up for her when the Pharisee was critical towards her. The Gospels teach us that whenever a sinner touched the Lord, virtue would go out of Him and that sinner would be cleansed. A good example of this is seen in Mark 5:30, where Jesus healed the woman with an issue of blood. Because the Lord is “without sin,” (Heb. 4:15), and “undefiled,” (Heb. 7:26), His holiness could never be affected by a sinner’s touch. The sinner would be changed every time! Knowing this to be true, it is interesting that Mary, by wiping the Savior’s feet with her hair was not rebuked by the Lord and her disposition did not change. As a matter of fact, we see her repeating this task and there was no rebuke or change then either. So what can we learn from this? Are these instances of worship contrary to the Scriptures? Did we have some sort of dispensational change between the Gospels and First Corinthians? No, none of these could possibly be the answer. So, what do we actually see here? WE SEE MARY WIPING JESUS’ FEET WITH HER GOD-GIVEN GLORY! This is the Biblical model! We worship His glory with all of our own God-given glory! Romans 15:17 Can’t we all learn from this? Shouldn’t we ascribe all of the glory that God has given us to Himself? Shouldn’t we worship our Creator with our very best? Would to God that more believers would give the Lord all the glory instead of seeking a glorification from men! This is also true concerning the gifts of the Holy Spirit. GOD gave us these gifts… we should use them for God’s glory!!! Now we can clearly see that God gave the woman long hair as a covering to be a glory to her so that she can glorify her God in worship as well as in her daily living!
I believe, based upon the clear context of this chapter as well as the support lent by the rest of Scripture, that a woman who wears any kind of garment head covering because she believes that 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 so says, is completely misinformed and is actually attempting to add an outward element to worship which is not required, recommended or even supported by the Bible. There is not one instance in the Bible where we find that a woman is taught to wear an additional covering over her hair. For us to believe that 1 Corinthians teaches this, we have to look to other sources for our interpretation. As a Bible-believing Baptist I reject that suggestion. BOTTOM LINE: A man cannot glorify God if he has long hair and a woman cannot glorify God if her hair is short. Let us examine ourselves to make sure we are within God’s boundaries of separation for both male and female. Question: How can we expect God to bring glory to our assemblies when we refuse to glorify Him in this most basic of truths?! |