Does Scripture Require Head Coverings? | Live Broadcast at Homestead Heritage

Presenters: Asi Adams, Kevin Rumsey, Gabe Barbieri, Nathan & Regina Tittley
Across the church world today, devout Christians are desiring to revitalize their convictions, consecration and walk with God. This leads to a honest desire to find the identity of Christ revealed in scripture, regardless of cultural norms or practices. One of these subjects is that of head coverings, and an understanding of what Paul is communicating in 1 Corinthians 11. Does Paul’s teaching refer to cloth coverings for women, or is he addressing matters of relationship and heart?

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “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.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions for them to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered no one disputes that but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by the head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually being stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. As I mentioned earlier some will lay claim that they must be referring to a physical head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. Allow me to expand on this if you will because this is very important. If you are going to make the argument to prove your point that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible supposedly claims that women ought to wear a veil based on two conditions, then it is only logical to understand that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one; for example: if the woman is speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should deny this, meaning that the woman should wear their “veil” under other conditions then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. Please note that the belief in women wearing veils for many groups hinges on this “two-condition” argument because if there were actual conditions then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. But keep in mind that it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off. Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promotor would not go along with this. Then there is verse 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.” So, there seems to be another reason for men not to cover. Therefore if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should he not be covered under any condition because of verse 7? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14. * Did people really view unveiled women as someone shaved? I know this question sounds weird but I’m not trying to be funny, veil promoters have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved based on 1st Corinthians 11:5. Now some will also say that Paul was speaking metaphorically but for the moment let’s focus on those who have told me that it was literal. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real-life scenario based on the idea that unveiled women are equated to being shaved. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone being shaved, as in shaved bald? Did Christians really look at unveiled women this way? Doesn’t that seem odd? But what if “uncovered” means “short hair” not shaved like in bald but simply cut short like a typical man’s haircut? Wouldn’t it fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair)? By doing so then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be likened to being shaved bald since it is already short. Doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words, it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven bald rather than being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even if she has long hair) is somehow equal to being shaved as veil promoters claim. This is how they claim the Bible is teaching regardless of its lack of sense. The idea that Paul was speaking metaphorically also doesn’t make sense given that he goes on and on with hair removal in the next verse. “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.” To repeat the same idea of cutting off hair or something that is likened to cutting off hair in two separate sentences and on top of that saying two similar words like shorn and shaven back-to-back should indicate that he was being serious about the topic of cutting off hair. This should negate the false idea that he was speaking metaphorically.

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, we should be asking when they are referring to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV If the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s the case, then to be uncovered would mean to have short hair. If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is very important so please don’t dismiss it. Be honest with yourself do YOU really believe that the average person will look at an unveiled, praying woman and naturally think a VEIL is missing? Are we to assume that Paul expected the average person to have instilled within them the idea that a foreign object is missing from a woman? I have never seen or heard anyone say something like: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head?” after looking at a long-haired, praying woman. To so do would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. I think can say with some assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a woman with short hair especially if we are looking at their backs to confirm whether the person was male or female. It seems like a natural reaction especially when we were young. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong: whether it be OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (a.k.a. short hair) while praying or OBSERVING a man having long hair. In addition, by using the word “NATURE” one can’t even use the excuse that perhaps they were expecting only Christians to see something different. Clearly, if “nature” teaches us that something looks off then it must be including all of mankind as nature teaches all of us both Christian and non-Christian. I would like to also add that these verses are NOT jumping from the discussion of a “veil” in verse 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in verse 14 like some would like to argue because you will note that verse 15 refers again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” is to mean “long hair.” Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses are referring to hair length. By this, we can understand verse 4 which states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered as I previously mentioned. I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due to the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is exclusive to two conditions instead of seeing them as two examples. As mentioned before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. If the Bible states that a woman ought to cover her head wouldn’t people think they are referring to a head covering as it would be strange to think he meant to quickly grow their hair long? I don’t think Paul who was telling women to keep the custom of keeping their hair long expected their hair to quickly grow. This type of argument almost seems as if Paul was not telling women to keep their hair long in the same way he was saying men ought not to have long hair as read in verse 14. Because the main argument of veil promoters is that Paul was pushing for women to wear a veil as opposed to what the rest of us are saying that he was saying for them to keep their hair long. No one is saying that women ought to cover their heads instantaneously if they are not covered in long hair, but that they should be covered and that they should keep that custom. Is it true that those who promote the wearing of veils believe that if a woman is not covered in a veil, she should have her head shaved? As similar as it may sound2 to what we spoke of earlier regarding the equivalency of a woman’s unveiled head to being shaved in verse 5 but about literally shaving a woman’s head in verse 6. Now I cannot say this for all veil promoters, but I have been told, by many of them, that this is what the Bible teaches. “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.” This verse is often misinterpreted just as they do with verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone that if a woman has short hair, then yes let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shorn or shaven let her be covered in long hair. Yet veil promoters take this verse and have construed it as something of a punishment. The idea is that back then Christian women were disciplined by having their heads shaved. Ok, let’s review this and put this in perspective. So, in verse 5 they believe that an unveiled woman is likened to a person whose head is shaved (which already is illogical), and then in verse 6 they believe that if the woman is not covered in a veil that her hair should be shorn off as a punishment regardless of whether her hair is long? When confronted about this extreme approach in verses 5 and 6 they normally do not deny it, as though this were normal. Yet when explaining that to be uncovered means to have short hair and covered means to have long hair, they make it seem as though it is weirder than their extreme and illogical conclusions. It is my belief that some reach these conclusions mainly because they’ve allowed themselves to be brainwashed rather than having made a careful study of the Scriptures.

[@arthurvanderhoff2413]

Solid teaching!

[@SlavikChiley]

Claiming that head covering is unnecessary because the deeper meaning is the more important, is similar to claiming that water baptism is not important because the deeper meaning behind it is more important. If God tells you to do it, then you should do it.

[@heritage_press]

@slavikchiley No, sir, we’re not suggesting it’s unnecessary to follow Paul’s instruction for a woman to have a “sign of authority on her head.” But, referring to this external sign, he explicitly says her “hair is given to her as her covering” (1 Corinthians 11:15, ESV). None of our women cut their hair; they accept that they should have a sign - a symbol - on their heads of the relational reality that God is far more concerned about. We both agree that there should be a relational reality and a symbol. You think the symbol is a piece of cloth; we agree with Paul that “her long hair is given to her as her covering” (1 Corinthians 11:15). In fact, all the mentions of “covering” or “uncovered” up until verse 15 carry no essential connection to hair or cloth veils. The Greek in every case is a cognate of katakalupto, meaning simply to cover up. The only time any word is used for “covering” that has a specific underlying reference to cloth or hair is verse 15’s use of peribolaion, a word translated in Hebrews 1:22 as “robe” and in its verb form as “clothed” in many places. So the only time in 1 Corinthians 11 that the Greek infers any reference to “cloth” appears in his discourse when he specifically says that her “hair” is given to her as her “veil.” Strong’s and other lexicons confirm that he is saying her hair is given to her in place of a cloth veil.

[@SlavikChiley]

So what you're saying here is that the woman should make sure that her husband is covered and not shaved? You are making this all into a metaphor to to excuse the church not practicing this, when it is more plausibly understood literally.

[@heritage_press]

It is not a matter of "literal" versus "metaphorical" at all. Instead, the debate pivots on whether he is referring to something that is a physical covering or a spiritual/relational covering, accompanied by a physical sign that can also, in some sense, be referred to as a "covering." It is "literally" true that Jesus is the Lamb of God, the lion of Judah, the good Shepherd, the door, the sower--but it is not physically true. It is "literally" true that Paul was a father to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 4:15), but not physically so. It is true that Paul was in "birth pains" until Christ was formed in the church (Gal. 4:19), but not physically. It is literally true that Paul laid a foundation (1 Cor. 3:10), but not physically true. So, the question has nothing to do with literal versus metaphorical interpretation of scripture. Instead, the question is whether Paul is concerned about relationships and order in the church and whether these can be resolved with pieces of cloth or relational submission between husbands and wives-signified with a symbolic physical sign (long hair). Since the scripture does not give any indication that the "covering" has anything to do with a piece of cloth, you are the one reading that into the text because of your inherited preconceptions. The scripture, repeatedly and abundantly, confirms the need for a wife to "learn from her own husband" (1 Cor. 14:35) and otherwise live in submission to her husband, echoing the motif of submission found throughout scripture (Ephesians 5:22-24). It is the same motif that the Apostle Paul is building on. He is not, as a sloppy reading of scripture might indicate, introducing a never-before-heard-of pattern of wearing cloth whenever one prophesies or prays. He is harmonizing with all the abundant scriptures that speak of submission between husbands and wives-and showing that God gave a sign of this authority, which should also be regarded. "Her hair is given to her as her covering" (1 Cor. 11:15). That leaves no question about the symbolic covering. It's unequivocal. Every other interpretation requires adding onto or reading into Paul's instruction.