Christian Women & The Head Covering

The other day I got into an argument of sorts with a lady friend about whether or not Christian women of today should still put on head coverings. Suffice it to say that she felt that the notion of women wearing a head covering was misunderstood. She felt that the long hair that women are supposed to have is the covering that the bible referred to, basing her argument on 1 Cor 11:15.

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

I will like however for us to take a more critical look at the whole of 1 Cor 11:3-16. It is interesting to note that Paul was speaking to people of an Eastern origin. However, he bases his statements not only on cultural and social norms, but refers to the order of creations. This makes his statements about this topic very universal and arguments against its application in other cultures quite unfounded. There is no doubt that a divine order is being expounded by Paul in his address to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 11:3. Note the use of the phrase “I would have you know”.

1Co 11:3 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.

The use of the word “head” denotes a sign of authority, establishing the relationship between Christ and the Church (made up of men & women), between a woman and “the man” and of Christ and God. However he points out that because men were made in the “image of God”, he is always to show himself as such.

1Co 11:7 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

Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible comments on this passage as follows, and many commentators agree with his analysis

1Co 11:7 –

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head – That is, with a veil; or in public worship; when he approaches God, or when in His name he addresses his fellow man. It is not fit and proper that he should be covered. The reason why it is not proper, the apostle immediately states.

Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God – The phrase “the image of God” refers to the fact that man was made in the likeness of his Maker Gen_1:27; and proves that, though fallen, there is a sense in which he is still the image of God. It is not because man is truly or pure, and thus resembles his Creator; but it evidently is because he was invested by his Maker with authority and dominion; he was superior to all other creatures; Gen_1:28. This is still retained; and this the apostle evidently refers to in the passage before us, and this he says should be recognized and regarded. If he wore a veil or turban, it would be a mark of servitude or inferiority. It was therefore improper that he should appear in this manner; but he should he so clad as not to obscure or hide the great truth that he was the direct representative of God on the earth, and had a superiority to all other creatures.

However, the woman is made in the image of man. Woman, though a partner and a partaker of the image of God, is inferior to man.

But the woman is the glory of the man – The honor, the ornament, etc. She was made for him; she was made after he was; she was taken from him, and was “bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh.” All her comeliness, loveliness, and purity are therefore an expression of his honor and dignity, since all that comeliness and loveliness were made of him and for him. This, therefore, ought to be acknowledged by a suitable manner of attire; and in his presence this sense of her inferiority of rank and subordination should be acknowledged by the customary use of the veil. She should appear with the symbol of modesty and subjection, which are implied by the head being covered. This sense is distinctly expressed in the following verse.

1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Having established the relationship of honour between man and woman, he goes ahead to give instructions to how women should also portray that relationship in honour not just to man but to God who ordained this order of creation. It is not for no reason that man is told to “Love” his wife, but the woman to “Submit” to her husband (Eph 5:22-25).

“…

I. The duty prescribed to wives is submission to their husbands in the Lord (Eph_5:22), which submission includes the honouring and obeying of them, and that from a principle of love to them. They must do this in compliance with God’s authority, who has commanded it, which is doing it as unto the Lord; or it may be understood by way of similitude and likeness, so that the sense may be, “as, being devoted to God, you submit yourselves unto him.” From the former sense we may learn that by a conscientious discharge of the duties we owe to our fellow-creatures we obey and please God himself; and, from the latter, that God not only requires and insists on those duties which immediately respect himself, but such as respect our neighbours too. The apostle assigns the reason of this submission from wives: For the husband is the head of the wife, Eph_5:23. The metaphor is taken from the head in the natural body, which, being the seat of reason, of wisdom, and of knowledge, and the fountain of sense and motion, is more excellent than the rest of the body. God has given the man the pre-eminence and a right to direct and govern by creation, and in that original law of the relation, Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Whatever there is of uneasiness in this, it is an effect of sin coming into the world. Generally, too, the man has (what he ought to have) a superiority in wisdom and knowledge. He is therefore the head, even as Christ is the head of the church. There is a resemblance of Christ’s authority over the church in that superiority and headship which God has appointed to the husband. The apostle adds, and he is the Saviour of the body. Christ’s authority is exercised over the church for the saving of her from evil, and the supplying of her with every thing good for her. In like manner should the husband be employed for the protection and comfort of his spouse; and therefore she should the more cheerfully submit herself unto him. So it follows, Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ (Eph_5:24), with cheerfulness, with fidelity, with humility, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing – in every thing to which their authority justly extends itself, in every thing lawful and consistent with duty to God.

II. The duty of husbands (on the other hand), is to love their wives (Eph_5:25); for without this they would abuse their superiority and headship, and, wherever this prevails as it ought to do, it will infer the other duties of the relation, it being a special and peculiar affection that is required in her behalf. The love of Christ to the church is proposed as an example of this, which love of his is a sincere, a pure, an ardent, and constant affection, and that notwithstanding the imperfections and failures that she is guilty of. The greatness of his love to the church appeared in his giving himself unto the death for it. Observe, As the church’s subjection to Christ is proposed as an exemplar to wives, so the love of Christ to his church is proposed as a pattern to husbands; and while such exemplars are offered to both, and so much is required of each, neither has reason to complain of the divine injunctions. The love which God requires from the husband in behalf of his wife will make amends for the subjection which he demands from her to her husband; and the prescribed subjection of the wife will be an abundant return for that love of the husband which God has made her due.” (Mathew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible).

This preceding commentary condemns the attitude of commandeering which most men exhibit towards women, especially their wives. The demand on men is to love as Christ loved the church, a high standard of love indeed. This is to be reciprocated by submission of women as the weaker partners in creation. With this background, it is only fitting as a sign of submission for a woman to have a covering on her head in public prayer and worship if they really reverence God and his purposes in creation.

1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.

Barnes has his say on this.

“…

The obvious interpretation would be, that a woman should have a veil on her head because of the angels who were supposed to be present, observing them in their public worship; and it is generally agreed that the word “power” (ἐξουσίαν exousian) denotes a veil, or a covering for the head. But the word power does not occur in this sense in any classic writer. Bretschneider understands it of a veil, as being a defense or guard to the face, lest it should be seen by others. Some have supposed that it was the name of a female ornament that was worn on the head, formed of braids of hair set with jewels. Most commentators agree that it means a “veil,” though some think (see Bloomfield) that it is called power to denote the veil which was worn by married women, which indicated the superiority of the married woman to the maiden. But it is sufficient to say in reply to this, that the apostle is not referring to married women in contradistinction from those who are unmarried, but is showing that all women who prophecy or pray in public should be veiled. There can, perhaps, be no doubt that the word “power” has reference to a veil, or to a covering for the head; but why it is called power I confess I do not understand; and most of the comments on the word are, in my view, egregious trifling.”

As I pointed out earlier, the whole passage being treated has been baselined by Paul’s reference to creation and to the Church’s relationship with Christ. This also rules out, as Barnes notes, the notion that wearing a veil only applies to married women. Rebekah showed that humility and honour of the man she was about to marry by putting on her veil before she first met him.

Gen 24:65 For she [had] said unto the servant, What man [is] this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant [had] said, It [is] my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself.

But what is there to say about long hair for women as mentioned in v 15?

John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible has this to say:

1Co 11:15 – But if a woman have long hair,…. And wears it, without cutting it, as men do:

it is a glory to her; it is comely and beautiful; it is agreeable to her sex, she looks like herself; it becomes and adorns her:

for her hair is given her for a covering; not instead of a covering for her head, or any other part of her body, so that she needs no other: we read indeed of the daughter of Nicodemus ben Gorion, that she was obliged to make use of her hair for a covering in such a sense (l);

“it happened to R. Jochanan ben Zaccai that he rode upon an ass, and went out of Jerusalem, and his disciples went after him; he saw a young woman gathering barley corns out of the dung of the Arabian cattle; when she saw him, נתעטפה בשערה, “she covered herself with her hair”, and stood before him:”

but this covering was made use of, not of choice, but by force, through her poverty, she having no other; this was not the custom of the nation, nor was the hair given to women for a covering in this sense, nor used by them as such, unless by Eve before the fall; but is rather an indication that they want another covering for their head, it not being so decent that their long hair should be seen. The Jewish women used to esteem it an immodest thing for their hair to be seen, and therefore they took care, as much as possible, to hide it under another covering;”

There is no doubt that long hair is fitting for women. I am yet to hear of a society that encourages short hair as the norm, and it is only a further part of the attractiveness of women to men, the end of this being the glorification of God through the act of procreation.

However, wearing of the veil or covering of the head denotes a respect for divine order, and our cultural leanings not withstanding, coming into the Christian order requires that each of the sexes clearly depict God’s purpose for creating them. It is only a pity that today’s deceiving spirits are at work, stealing the minds of even Christians to conform to the standards of modernization. Today’s Christians cannot take the Bible for what it is, and are rather pleased with what some people will have them believe.

But rest assured. “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”(2 Tim 2:19).

---

4th July 2008

Gal 3:27-28 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

I think my previous statement that woman are inferior to man contradicts the spirit of Gal 3:27. I’ve decided not to remove it silently but to make it known publicly that that statement considered in the light of the above and others is not true “in Christ” – in Christianity “we are all one”. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but i know most very traditional Christians won’t agree. Any opinions are invited as per Col 3:16, however this admission does not take away the substantive arguement behind the wearing of head veils for women.