A topic that students frequently raise in my classes is whether or not women should cover their heads when they pray or prophesy from 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. Conversely, the passage also states that men must remove any head coverings when they pray or prophesy. Do modern Christians need to obey this controversial practice of the early church?
Every modern Christian woman should cover her head and every modern Christian man should uncover his head when they pray or prophesy according to 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. The passage should be directly applied by all modern Christians.
The reason so many people ask questions about 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is because it is a New Testament command that is clearly counter-cultural. It is not just counter-cultural in Western society, but it is counter-cultural in most Western evangelical churches as well. As such, it is not easily ignored. The question about whether or not women should cover their heads and men should uncover their heads when they pray or prophesy is mainly a question about application. The real question is, ‘do modern Christians have to apply 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 to themselves?’ This is the question I hope to convincingly answer in this article.
Because this article is fairly long, the outline below has jump links so you can jump to the section that most interests you.
I. Interpretation Issues in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 A. Context of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 B. Who Covers and Who Uncovers? C. Do Head Coverings Refer to Long Hair? II. Application of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 A. Modern Christians Should Apply 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 Based on the Rationale in the Passage Itself B. Modern Christians Should Apply 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 Based on the Salvation Historical Application Method C. A Response to Those Who Say Modern Christians Should NOT Apply 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 III. Summary and Concluding Thoughts
I. Interpretation Issues in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16
In 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, Paul exhorts the church to maintain the tradition that men or husbands should uncover their heads when they pray and prophecy, while women or wives should covertheir heads when they pray or prophesy (11:4–5). Note that the head covering issue is only applicable when praying or prophesying (11:4–5). Paul is not advocating that men uncover their heads and women cover their heads when out in public, at the home, at church, or at any other time, only when praying or prophesying.
“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.”
1 CORINTHIANS 11:4–5, ESV
A. Context of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16
In 1 Corinthians 11:2–34, which includes the passage about head coverings and the Lord’s Supper, the apostle Paul praises the Corinthian church for maintaining the traditions that he passed on to them: “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you” (1 Cor 11:2).
A brief comment on what Paul means by “traditions” is merited. Frequently, traditions are seen as negative, referring to the traditions of men (see Matt 15:2–3; Col 2:8). However, “traditions” can also refer to the teachings of the apostles as we see in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6. Since Paul is commending the church for holding to the traditions that he (Paul) delivered, it is safe to say that Paul is commending the church for holding to his (Paul’s) teaching.
By praising the Corinthian church for maintaining the traditions (i.e., obeying his teachings) prior to his instructions about head coverings and the Lord’s Supper, Paul is indicating that his discussion on these topics is part of the traditions/teachings that he delivered to them. Further, by praising the Corinthian church for maintaining the traditions, Paul is employing a rhetorical technique that encourages them to obey his instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:2–34, which are part of the traditions.
B. Who Covers and Who Uncovers?
There is an important exegetical decision to make regarding who covers their head and who uncovers their head. The issue surrounds the Greek words for man/husband and woman/ wife. The Greek word for man and husband is the same: ἀνήρ. Further, the Greek word for woman and wife is the same: γυνή. Thus, whenever you read “man” in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, it could also be read “husband” and vice-versa. Whenever you read “woman” in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, it could be read “wife” and vice-versa. We see this problem acutely in verses 3–5. Let’s look at this passage with all its options.
“But I want you to understand that the head of every man (or “husband”) is Christ, the head of a wife (or “woman”) is her husband (or “man”), and the head of Christ is God. Every man (or “husband”) who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife (or “woman”) who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.”
1 CORINTHIANS 11:3–5, ESV, emphasis and annotation added
So, the questions are (1) do men or husbands need to uncover their head when praying or prophesying? And (2) do women or wives need to cover their head when praying or prophesying.
I believe that this passage speaks about men and women throughout for the following reasons. (1) The first use of ἀνήρ is clearly “man,” not husband (all English translations agree), setting the interpretive precedent that ἀνήρ refers to “man” and γυνή refers to “woman” unless something in the biblical text indicates otherwise. (2) Translating ἀνήρ as “man” and γυνή as “woman” is consistent, unlike some translations that seem to arbitrarily shift between the different meanings, such as the ESV (my favoured English translation 😢). (3) In the ancient Mediterranean world, women were always under the authority of a man, either her father or her husband. Even when a woman was an adult, if she were not married, she was under the authority of her father or whoever the patriarch was if her father was dead.
Thus, I read verses 3–5 as follows:
“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.”
1 CORINTHIANS 11:3–5, emphasis added
Exegetically, you are free to disagree with my translation and adopt a translation that says husbands must uncover their heads and wives must cover their heads when praying or prophesying, but we should all agree that 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 clearly states that men or husbands should uncover their heads and women or wives should cover their heads when praying of prophesying.
C. Do Head Coverings Refer to Long Hair?
The final interpretive issue that needs to be briefly addressed is what Paul means by a head covering. It has been argued that whenever Paul mentions head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 (specifically, vv 5, 6, 7, 10, & 13), he is actually referring to long hair. As such, a woman must have long hair when she prays or prophesies and a man must have short hair. This interpretation came about because of verse 15, which says, “but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
The fact that Paul refers to long hair as a covering in 1 Corinthians 11:15 does not necessitate that every time he mentions a head covering in the previous 14 verses he refers to hair. A careful reading of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 shows that in verse 15 Paul is using nature to support his point that women should cover their heads when they pray or prophesy (a topic to which we will return below). Paul certainly points to the similarities between a head covering and long hair, but he never equates the two.
There are two convincing pieces of evidence that Paul does not equate head coverings with long hair. First, Paul says men are to uncover their heads when they pray and prophesy, while women are to cover their heads when they pray and prophesy. If the head covering refers to one’s hair, then the entire argument of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 does not make sense. How does one put on and take off one’s hair multiple times a day to pray? They can’t. As such, the covering is probably something external, not one’s hair.
Second, 1 Corinthians 11:6 does not make any sense if the head covering equates long hair: “For if a woman will not cover her head, she should cut off her hair.” If the head covering in verse 6 refers to hair, then it would be like Paul saying, ‘you with short hair, cut your hair short because your hair is short.’ It just doesn’t make any sense. Rather, verse 6 strongly suggests that a head covering is something external that a woman puts on her head when she prays or prophesies and that a man takes off when he prays or prophesies.
II. Application of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16
Now that we know what 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is saying, we need to ask the ‘so what?’ question, which is the application question. Applying this passage to ourselves in 2023 is actually not that difficult. Men should take off anything that covers their heads whenever they pray or prophesy, such as hats or sunglasses if they’re on our head and not on our face. Women should cover their heads with something whenever they pray or prophesy. Because 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 does not state with what a woman should cover her head, she has the freedom to choose her covering, such as a hat, a prayer shawl, a doily type covering, etc.
The question modern Christians want answered is should we adopt the head covering practice? I suspect most of my readers are now saying “no, we should not.” My question for you is, “why?” If you say “yes, we should adopt this practice,” I also ask why? On what are you basing your answer? How have you come to decide whether or not you should apply this passage to yourself? This is where your hermeneutic/method of application comes into play.
A. Modern Christians Should Apply 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 Based on the Rationale in the Passage Itself
The apostle Paul gives four supporting arguments for his exhortation that men pray/prophesy with heads uncovered and women pray/prophesy with heads covered. Let’s briefly look at each to determine whether or not modern Christians should apply and appropriate this passage.
1. Headship Order (1 Cor 11:3)
The apostle Paul bases his command for men to pray/prophesy with heads uncovered and women to pray/prophesy with heads covered on the headship order in God’s creation:
“But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.”
1 CORINTHIANS 11:3
The covering or uncovering of one’s physical head reflects the authoritative headship of the divine order, which is: God–>Christ–>Man–>Woman. Because the headship order of God’s creation has not changed today, the command has not changed for today. In other words, men should still uncover their heads because Christ is still the head of man and God is still the head of Christ. Women should still cover their heads because man is still the head of woman, Christ is still the head of man, and God is still the head of Christ.
2. Image and Glory (1 Cor 11:6–8)
Paul claims that a man should uncover his head when he prays/prophesies because he is the image and glory of God, while a woman should cover her head when she prays/prophesies because she is the image and glory of man:
“For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.”
1 CORINTHIANS 11:7–8
Paul bases his assertion that man is the image and glory of God and woman is the glory of man on the creation order, which cannot be changed. Further, there is nothing in Scripture that voids or does away with the claim that man is the image and glory of God and woman is the glory of man. Because these are eternal truths based on the creation order, men should still uncover their heads and women should still cover their heads.
3. The Purpose of Woman in Creation (1 Cor 11:9–10)
Paul’s third supporting argument for his exhortation that men pray/prophesy with heads uncovered and women pray/prophesy with heads covered is that woman was created for man, not the other way around:
“Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”
1 CORINTHIANS 11:9–10, emphasis added
Once again, Paul goes back to the creation account, which cannot be changed. Genesis 2:18–25 clearly supports Paul’s claim that woman was created for man. Because the creation account of God creating woman for man is historical fact and cannot be changed today or any day, men should still uncover their heads and women should still cover their heads.
4. Nature (1 Cor 11:13–15)
Paul’s final supporting argument is that nature (i.e., the way things simply are based on God’s design) confirms that men should pray/prophesy with heads uncovered and women should pray/prophesy with heads covered:
“Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
1 CORINTHIANS 11:13–15
Paul argues that because it is generally accepted that it is a disgrace for a man to have long hair like a woman, he should pray/prophesy with his head uncovered. Conversely, because it is generally accepted that if a woman has long hair it is her glory, she should pray/prophesy with her head covered.
I would agree with Paul that throughout the world, long hair is treated as a woman’s glory, and men with long hair like a woman are looked down upon because it is disgraceful. I know this is not a popular opinion in the West today, but I believe it still holds true for much of the West, even if we don’t say it out loud. Nature tells us that men have short hair and women have long hair. We see it almost everywhere we go. We see it in the schools, we see it in the malls, we see it at church. The West is certainly trying to eliminate these male-female distinctions, by making men androgenous and women masculine, but as much as they try, it will never hold. Men will always by-and-large have short hair, and women will always by-and-large have long hair to their glory. As such, men should still uncover their heads today and women should still cover their heads today.
5. Summary of Paul’s Rationale
Paul’s rationale for men uncovering their heads and women covering their heads when praying or prophesying is based on the eternal truths of God’s creation design that cannot be changed. Because Paul’s rationale for head coverings is still true today, Christian men and women must continue to obey Paul’s inspired command.
Paul concludes his rationale with a claim that is frequently neglected in the head covering conversation:
“If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.”
1 CORINTHIANS 11:16
Paul says that Christians and churches should not be contentious regarding his head coverings command. Women covering their heads and men uncovering their heads is the practice of the churches of God, according to Paul. I ask my readers this question: are the churches today still churches of God? If they are (which I certainly believe so), then no church of God should be contentious regarding head coverings. Christian men should uncover and Christian women should cover when praying or prophesying.
B. Modern Christians Should Apply 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 Based on the Salvation Historical Application Method
Although Paul’s rationale for head coverings is strong enough to stand on its own, let’s now seek to determine if modern Christians should apply 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 to themselves by looking at the command through the Salvation-Historical Application Method. An explanation of this method can be found HERE and is well worth a read.
Before we begin, it should be noted that the Salvation-Historical Application Method assumes the Bible is written by God and has authority over the lives of modern Christians.
1. What is the Text’s Place in Salvation History?
Although 1 Corinthians was written to the church at Corinth in the first century, Paul applies the tradition of head coverings to all churches: “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God” (1 Cor 11:16).
Further, Paul is an apostle of Jesus who expounds the ways of Jesus to disciples of Jesus, who are under the New Covenant, members of the church, and citizens of the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 1:1–2).
2. What is My Place in Salvation History?
I am (a) a disciple of Jesus, (b) under the New Covenant, (c) a member of the church, and (d) a citizen of the Kingdom of God (as are all Christians). Further, the church of which I am a member is a church of God, which is important because Paul says his instructions on head coverings are for “the churches of God” (1 Cor 11:16).
3. Does the Text Align with My Place in Salvation History?
Yes, 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 aligns with my place in salvation history. This should be quite clear based on points 1 & 2 above. Paul is writing to disciples of Jesus, who are under the New Covenant, members of the church, and citizens of the Kingdom of God, which is exactly what I am and what all Christians are.
4. Is the Text Indicative or Imperative?
1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is imperative. Paul is instructing his readers, who are disciples of Jesus, that men should uncover their heads and women should cover their heads when they pray or prophesy. Paul expects his readers to obey his instructions regarding head coverings.
5. Applying the Imperative: Is There Anything in the Text that Limits It to a Specific Person, Time, or Place?
Yes. First, 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 limits covering heads to women and uncovering heads to men (1 Cor 11:4–5). The text is clear that all women must cover and all men must uncover.
Second, 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 limits covering and uncovering heads to times of prayer and times of prophesying (1 Cor 11:4–5). The only time a woman needs to cover her head is when she prays or prophesies, while the only time a man needs to uncover his head is when he prays or prophesies.
It must be noted, however, that there is nothing in the text that limits Paul’s instructions on head coverings to the first century or any century.
6. Applying the Imperative: Is There Anything in the Text that Limits It to the Greco-Roman Culture, Jewish Culture, or First-Century Mediterranean Culture?
No, there is nothing in the text itself (1 Cor 11:2–16 or the letter of 1 Corinthians) that indicates Paul’s command regarding head coverings is cultural or limited to any particular culture. Because of Paul’s rationale, we can confidently say that Paul understands the covering and uncovering of one’s head as part of the Christian culture or the church culture, but not that it is limited to the Christian/church culture of a particular time or generation. In short, there is nothing in the text itself that suggests women covering their heads and men uncovering their heads is limited to the Greco-Roman culture, the Jewish culture, or the first-century Mediterranean culture. Therefore, the cultural argument does not apply.
As you can tell, I put a lot of burden upon the biblical text and take my application cues from the biblical text. It is up to the biblical text to tell Christians whether something is limited to a particular time, place, or culture. If the text does not state or suggest any limitations, then Christians should not impose any limitations.
7. Should We Apply 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 to Ourselves and the Modern Church?
Yes, 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 should be applied to modern Christians and the modern church. Because the text aligns with our place in salvation history and does not have any cultural or temporal limiters, men should uncover their heads when they pray or prophesy and women should cover their heads when the pray and prophesy.
8. Apply at a 1:1 Ratio
Christian men, remove any head covering, such as a hat, whenever you pray or prophesy. Christian women, cover your head with something, such as a scarf or a prayer shawl, whenever you pray or prophesy. For those desiring to purchase a prayer shawl, Amazon has a number of different types. Click here for one option, but note there are others.
C. A Response to Those Who Say Modern Christians Should NOT Apply 1 Corinthians 11:2–16
I am well aware that my position regarding the application of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is the minority position amongst Western Evangelical Christians today. Because of that, I would like to briefly respond to the more prominent arguments that conclude modern Christian women do not need to cover their heads when they pray/prophesy and modern Christian men do not need to uncover their heads when they pray/prophesy.
There are four prominent arguments as to why Christians do not need apply Paul’s instructions on head coverings. Let’s briefly look at each one.
1. The Bible is Not the Word of God/Does Not Have Authority over Christians
Unfortunately, many Western Christians do not consider the Bible as the Word of God in any way, shape, or form, and, thus, it does not have any authority over the Christian or how the Christian organizes his/her life. For many of these Christians, the Bible may contain the Word of God, but it is not the Word of God itself. As such, it is up to the individual to determine what to apply and what to disregard (i.e., what is the Word of God and what is authoritative and what is not).
Since I and many other Christians believe the Bible is the Word of God, we also believe it has authority over our lives and how we organize our lives.
2. Covering One’s Head was a Cultural Issue
The most prominent argument I hear against directly applying 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is that Paul is advocating for practices that were culturally normal for his day (i.e., the first-century Greco-Roman-Jewish world), but are not for our day. Because covering/uncovering one’s head while praying or prophesying is not a cultural norm in the modern West, it does not apply to us. As such, modern Christian women do not need to cover their heads and modern Christian men do not need to uncover their heads while praying/prophesying.
Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard take this route regarding the 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 passage, arguing that the cultural conditions “assumed” by Paul make it inappropriate to apply the passage at a 1:1 ratio. They argue that women do not need to cover their heads when they pray/prophesy because it is not a disgrace for a woman to shave her head or have her head uncovered in modern society (619). They argue:
“For Jewish women shaved heads may have suggested that they were guilty of adultery. For Greco-Roman women shaved heads may have indicated that they were the more masculine partner in a lesbian relationship. So unless short hair or uncovered heads send similar signals in modern-day cultures . . . the specific practice here is irrelevant.”
William W. Klein, Craig Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 619, emphasis added
There are a few problems with Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard’s cultural argument. First, they assume Paul is taking the secular, non-Christian, culture into account in his admonition for head coverings, but there is nothing in the biblical text that suggests this. Second, they are unclear about which cultural issue it is that disgraces women with shaved or uncovered heads. They cite two different possibilities. Third, they are unsure about the cultural issue. Notice in the above quote that they twice say “shaved heads may have . . . .” In my opinion, it is quite dubious to disobey a clear biblical command that aligns with modern Christians’ place in salvation history based on an ancient cultural possibility (not a certainty). Fourth, nothing in the biblical text references the cultural issues that Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard point out. Fifth, 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is about headship and authority, not sexual standards and looking masculine. Sixth, Paul basis his command in eternal truths that transcend culture.
The above issues I listed are issues with all arguments that dismiss the command based on cultural arguments.
It should be noted, however, that there is a cultural argument in favour of women covering their heads and men uncovering their heads. The wordplay surrounding the word “head” used throughout 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is present in modern English. In modern English, “head” can refer to both one’s authority and the body part, just like it does in the biblical Greek. Thus, the wordplay is present in both Paul’s culture and in our own, suggesting that the cultures are alike and the passage should be applied to the modern English-speaking church.
Hopefully you can see the problem with the cultural argument. Because it is not based on the biblical text, one can use it to either dismiss the command or promote adherence to it.
3. The Principle of Headship Should Be Applied, not the Mode
The second most prominent argument I hear against directly applying 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is that the principle of headship as presented in 1 Corinthians is applicable, but the mode of expressing headship in 1 Corinthians is cultural. Thus, I only need to apply the principle of headship, but how this headship is expressed is up to me/my culture.
There are three problems with this argument. First, the biblical text does not detach the principle from the mode. The text does not claim that the mode is cultural. Thus, the Christian is on rocky ground employing this hermeneutical method.
Second, it ignores the relationship between a person’s “head” (the one who has authority over them) and a person’s “head” (the body part). Paul’s argument is that the “head” of man is Christ; therefore, man does not cover his head. The “head” of woman is man; therefore, woman covers her head. This symbolic relationship is broken if the biblical mode of expressing headship is dismissed.
Third, modern Western culture has by-and-large rejected the idea of male headship, which begs the question how does a woman culturally apply the principle of male headship when the principle does not exist in our culture and, thus, has no modes of cultural expression? Further, modern Western culture has rejected the headship of Christ, which means there can be no cultural expression of Christ’s headship for men. Thus, the ultimate problem with applying the principle of headship as put forward in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 with a cultural expression is that there is no cultural expression for Christ headship or male headship.
4. Women Covering Heads is Part of the Patriarchal Culture
The final argument against applying 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 comes from Feminist Criticism. It argues that the command for women to cover their heads when they pray/prophesy is issued by a man in a patriarchal society for the purpose of oppressing women. As such, modern women should reject covering their heads.
Like the above arguments, this one has a number of problems. First, feminist criticism rejects the full inspiration and authority of the Bible. There are some feminist scholars that adhere to the inspiration of the Bible, but feminist criticism does not. Second, 1 Corinthians does not state that the purpose of women covering their heads when they pray/prophesy is to oppress women. Like the cultural argument, this approach ignores the topic of the passage. Third, covering one’s head while praying/prophesying does not oppress women. Fourth, the above argument is anachronistic in that it reads modern philosophies back into the biblical text.
III. Summary and Concluding Thoughts
The biblical text of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 is clear. Every Christian man should uncover his head when he prays or prophesies because Christ is his head. Every Christian woman should cover her head when she prays or prophesies because the man is her head. This text should be applied to all Christians because Paul bases it on eternal truths, because the text aligns with modern Christians’ place in salvation history, and because nothing in the text indicates that it is cultural or relegated to the first century.
1 Corinthians 11:2–16 reveals our method for applying Scripture. I have found through this passage that many Christians do not have a consistent method for determining which passages apply to modern Christians or how to apply Scripture. Most of my students dismiss this passage because they believe it is relegated to the first-century culture. When I ask how they determined this passage is relegated to the first-century culture, they do not have an answer. Thus, it seems that we Christians use the ‘cultural argument’ as an excuse to dismiss the biblical commands we don’t like.
Rather than dismissing 1 Corinthians 11:2–16 because it is strange and we may get odd looks in church, let us submit to Jesus and live faithfully in our prayer and prophetic life.