Head-Covering: Honouring God in Worship

Head-Covering: Honouring God in Worship

A Brief Biblical Case for Head Covering in Public Worship

Introduction

For most of church history, Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11 were understood to require a real, external covering for women in public worship. From the early fathers through the Reformers and Puritans, right into the early twentieth century, this practice was taught and observed across virtually every Christian tradition. Only in the mid-twentieth century, amid the rise of theological liberalism, cultural modernism, and second-wave feminism, did this near-universal obedience collapse within a single generation.

This short article argues a simple thesis: in the stated, gathered worship of God, men ought to worship with heads uncovered and women with heads covered. We say this tenderly, not as a bar to the church membership, or the Lord’s Table, but as a matter of humble discipleship under Scripture. The passage is demanding, and faithful saints have wrestled with it. Still, what God teaches, we must teach, graciously and plainly, from 1 Corinthians 11:2–16. A wise pastoral framing is to present the practice for prayerful consideration, not as a term of communion, because the text is challenging, yet to set it forth as the right reading so far as God has given light.

The setting is the assembly. Paul’s concern in chapters 11–14 is how the church behaves when it “come[s] together” (11:17; 14:26). In that context, he regulates praying and prophesying, the Lord’s Supper, and edifying speech; the head-covering instruction sits right there among his directions for the gathered church and its ordered worship.

The Text and Its Structure (1 Corinthians 11:2–16, KJV)

Paul begins: “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you” (v. 2). He then lays a creational foundation: “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (v. 3). From that order he gives two requirements: men praying or prophesying are not to be covered, and women praying or prophesying are to be covered (vv. 4–5). He buttresses this practice with reasons from creation (vv. 7–9), from the angels (v. 10), from nature (vv. 13–15), and from the practice of all the churches (v. 16).

Reason 1: Headship by Creation Order (vv. 3, 7–9)

Paul appeals to creation, not to Corinthian fashion. The order he states, God, Christ, man, woman, concerns relation and role, not worth. The Son’s willing subordination to the Father does not make Him inferior; likewise, male headship does not imply female inferiority. Head coverings in worship are a sign that embodies and honours that creational order in the assembly before God.

That is why the apostle ties the sign to the doctrine: when men are covered or women uncovered, the sign denies the order and “dishonoureth” the respective head (vv. 4–5). The crucial point is that a creation-rooted argument transcends local custom; it is the very reason many of us rightly insist that male eldership (1 Timothy 2:13) is not cultural. Paul reasons the same way here, in creation.

Prof. John Murray clearly argues this point: “Since Paul appeals to the order of creation (1 Corinthians 11:3b, 7ff), it is totally indefensible to suppose that what is in view and enjoined had only local or temporary relevance. The ordinance of creation is universally and perpetually applicable, as also are the implications for conduct arising therefrom.”

Paul carefully maintains dignity and reciprocity. “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord…” (vv. 11–12). The sexes are mutually needed and honoured, while distinct in office and sign.

R. C. Sproul said with conviction: “…the thing that is most astonishing here is that he appeals to creation, not to Corinth. If anything transcends local custom it is those things that are rooted and ordered in creation. That’s why I’m very frightened to be loose with this passage.”

Paul then adds a second reason, one that lifts the instruction beyond the seen world into the presence of heavenly beings.

Reason 2: A Symbol of Authority because of the Angels (v. 10)

“For this cause ought the woman to have power [i.e., a sign of authority] on her head because of the angels.” However mysterious that clause may be in its fullness, the point remains that angels attend the church’s worship, and the apostle Paul gives angels as a reason. The holy angels look on the church’s worship; through the church God makes known His manifold wisdom to “principalities and powers in heavenly places” (cf. Ephessians 3:10; 1 Pet 1:12). Head coverings visibly confess God’s creational order before men and angels. Whatever finer details we debate, the verse itself places angels among the reasons, hardly a local convention.

John Chrysostom exhorted, “The angels are present here. Open the eyes of faith and look upon this sight. For if the very air is filled with angels, how much more so the Church. Hear the Apostle teaching this, when he bids the women to cover their heads with a veil because of the presence of the angels lest they be grieved at the indecency who are greater and higher beings.”

Prof. Murray explained: “What is being pleaded is the offence given to the holy angels when the impropriety concerned mars the sanctity of God’s worship.”

Charles H. Spurgeon drew the same practical conclusion, that the angels observe our assemblies and mark indecorum, hence women should be covered in worship so that all is conducted with decency and order in their presence. Angels as witnesses lift the instruction above local custom into the atmosphere of heaven.

From the presence of heavenly beings, Paul turns our focus back to the created world itself, showing that even the patterns built into nature support his teaching.

Reason 3: Nature’s Instruction (vv. 13–15)

“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered” (v. 13). As elsewhere the “judge” language expects a negative answer (Acts 4:19-20). Paul points to a natural index of the usual difference of the sexes, ordinary hair length. “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering” (vv. 14–15). Nature (creation as God ordered it), understood as creation’s ordinary patterns, testifies to real distinctions between men and women; and to the dishonour of crossing them. Men generally wear hair shorter and women longer.

John Murray summarised nature’s witness: “The long hair is an indication from ‘nature’ of the differentiation between men and women, and so the head covering required is in line with what ‘nature’ teaches.”

The Apostle’s point is that nature displays distinctions and that disregarding them is dishonourable, which supports the sign in worship.

Having appealed to nature’s testimony, the apostle finally points to the shared witness of the churches, demonstrating that this was the common order of worship across the body of Christ.

Reason 4: The Practice of All the Churches (v. 16)

“If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” Paul is not saying that the churches do not cover. He ends debate by appealing to the common practice he has defended. The best sense of this verse is that there is no other custom than this among the churches. “We have no such custom” i.e., no other or alternative custom or practice to what he has just defended.

Tertullian reports, roughly 150 years after Paul, that the Corinthians were still veiling. He concludes, “What the apostles taught, their disciples approve.”

Dr. R. C. Sproul notes the breadth and longevity of the practice, that fabric head coverings in worship were universal until the twentieth century. He said: “The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church of Jesus Christ which is ‘the pillar and ground of the truth’?”

What is the Covering

Two coverings appear in the passage, in 1 Corinthians 11.

1. Natural, permanent glory, a woman’s long hair (vv. 14–15).
2. Removable, symbolic covering, a sign of authority in worship (v. 10).

The hair-only position fails at several points.

1.      First, verse 6 collapses into nonsense if covered means has long hair. “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn” would become, if she does not have long hair, let her cut her hair short, which is tautologous. If “not covered” means “short hair,” then “let her be shorn” simply repeats the same idea.

2.      Second, Paul uses different verbs in the same verse, keirō (shorn or to cut short) and xuraō (shaven), which shows he is not merely repeating himself, and shows that a removable covering is in view.

3.      Third, Paul calls long hair in v.15 a woman’s glory, while the worship covering is a power or symbol of authority. Glory and authority are different categories. The verses 10 and 15 cannot be saying the same thing if long hair is the covering.

4.      Fourth, the Greek preposition anti (“for” in v. 15 – “hair is given her for a covering unto her”) need not mean “instead of”; it can mean corresponding to (as in “grace for grace,” John 1:16). Paul’s point is that long hair corresponds to (and supports) the practice; it does not replace the sign.

The church’s historic understanding aligns with this reading. Tertullian witnesses to Corinthian practice in his day, and Hippolytus’ Apostolic Tradition instructs, “let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth.”

Where and When the Sign Applies

As mentioned before, the instructions govern corporate worship, the assembly of the saints. The unit sits within Paul’s “when ye come together” concerns (11:17) and regulates praying and prophesying in the church (cf. 14:4). It should be said that this teaching is not regulating private or family devotions; we are ordering the public assembly where Christ walks among the candlesticks and the angels look on.

Answering Some Common Objections

Objection 1: “The head covering was cultural, only a local custom in Corinth”

This is the biggest objection, and the weakest. Paul’s case is intentionally trans cultural. He argues from creation (vv. 3, 7-9), angels (v.10), nature (vv. 13-15), and the practice of all the churches (v.16). Fourteen verses of weighty, trans-cultural reasoning are not how the apostle treats a passing custom. He also frames the matter as an apostolic ordinance delivered to the churches (v.2), the same delivery language he later uses for the Lord’s Supper (v.23).

To read “traditions” (v. 2) as humanly optional is to miss Paul’s own distinction between man-made traditions and divine traditions that the churches must hold fast (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

Moreover, Paul explicitly appeals to the universal practice of the churches (v. 16). At the time there were congregations across varied geographies and cultures, Jews and Gentiles together, yet they shared the same practice. Tertullian, in the second century, confirms Corinth’s continued veiling, which is strong evidence that the churches understood Paul as giving a binding apostolic instruction. He said: “what the apostles taught, their disciples approve.”

A final word to those rightly committed to complementarian order in the home and church. We defend complementarian and male headship doctrine from creation, not culture. Consistency demands that we receive Paul’s creation-based argument here in the same way.

Objection 2: “The woman’s long or feminine style hair is her covering, so no extra covering is needed”

Paul clearly distinguishes the two coverings by logic, vocabulary, category, and history.

First, verse 6 collapses into tautology on the “hair only” view (“if she does not have long hair, let her cut her hair short”). The apostle’s actual argument is coherent only if “not covered” refers to a removable covering that can be put on for prayer and prophecy. Second, he differentiates keirō (cut short) from xuraō (shave), showing careful attention to hair length as a separate matter from the sign. Third, Paul calls long hair a woman’s glory (v. 15), but calls the worship covering a symbol of authority (v. 10). Glory and submission are not the same category. Fourth, anti in v. 15 commonly signals correspondence (“grace for grace,” John 1:16), not substitution; hair corresponds to the practice, it does not replace it. Finally, the church for centuries read the passage as requiring an actual covering in worship; the “hair only” interpretation is strikingly novel.

Also, as a side argument, the symbolic aspect of an external covering does also expose the weakness of the hair-only or long-hair logic, when we consider that in some ethnicities where their hair form is such that it needs to be kept very short, and also for others due to health and medical treatments, a women loses her hair, then does that mean she is dishonouring her head. No! It is only the natural covering that is affected, but in the public assembly for worship, they can glorify God by covering their head.

Objection 3: “The principle matters, the symbol can vary or be dropped”

When God appoints a visible sign to display a doctrine, we are not free to ignore or replace the sign. We shudder to think how this argument for principle and not the symbol could carry, if it was applied to the Lord’s Supper! The sign is pedagogy (teaching element) for the saints, and even for the angels. If we change the symbol or abandon it we obscure the doctrine, and we disobey the Lord, which Paul says brings dishonour upon our heads. It weakens our visible confession of God’s order.

To be clear: Scripture does not fix a single style. There is liberty of form (a simple scarf, a plain veil, a woman’s hat), provided the covering is real and visible, and the sign is not confused or hidden.

Objection 4: “Must women then be covered everywhere, all the time”

No. The passage regulates the church when it comes together; the point is the acts of prayer and proclamation in the assembly. The apostle’s interest is the ordered, visible confession of God’s creation order in His worship, not policing head-wear in daily errands.

A Closing Exhortation

“Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2). That is the apostolic call: keep what was delivered. That is our aim, to keep what was delivered. When men worship bareheaded and women worship covered, we are not indulging nostalgia, a man-made tradition or custom. We are confessing, in our bodies, God’s wise order in creation. We are refusing the levelling spirit of the age. We are bearing witness to the gospel’s restoration of manhood and womanhood. We are teaching our children what the Scripture says. We are instructing even the angels in the manifold wisdom of God.

Let none weaponise this practice. Let none be ashamed of it either. Where God has appointed a sign, the church should display it gladly. To set aside the sign is to blur the doctrine. To keep it is to honour Christ our Head.

This article was written by Pooyan Mehrshahi. He is the Pastor of Providence Baptist Chapel, Cheltenham, England.

Sources quoted:

·        John Chrysostom (c. AD 347-407), early church father and minister in Constantinople. Citation from a pastoral treatment of 1 Corinthians 11: “The angels are present here… [women] to cover their heads … because of the presence of the angels.”

·        Prof. John Murray, (1898-1975), a great Presbyterian theologian and preacher, founder of the Westminster Theological Seminary. Citation from a letter to Mr. V. Connors, Presbytery Clerk, Evangelical Presbyterian Church Australia - 1973, The Use of Head Coverings in the Worship of God.

·        Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834–1892) was a renowned 19th-century Baptist preacher, known as the “Prince of Preachers,” and pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. Citation from Sermons on Angels: “because of the angels”: the angels “mark every act of indecorum,” hence women are covered in worship.

·        Tertullian (c. AD 155-220), minister and defender of the faith in Carthage, North Africa. Citation from De Virginibus Velandis (On the Veiling of Virgins), ch. 8: “At this day the Corinthians do veil …”

·        Hippolytus (c. AD 170–235) was an early Christian theologian, presbyter in the church at Rome. Citation from Apostolic Tradition, §18: “…let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth…”

·        R. C. Sproul (1939–2017) was an American Reformed theologian, pastor, and prolific author, founder of Ligonier Ministries. Citation from, sermon ‘To Cover or Not To Cover’. The other longer citation is generally quoted in articles. Exact origin unknown. Historical observation: universal practice until the twentieth century.

Pooyan Mehrshahi