Borzási István

The head-covering of women

(An interpretation and application of 1Corinthians 11:2-16,
in the context of the Hungarian Baptists of Romania)

I. Introduction

Before everything I would like to encourage all Hungarian Baptist pastors of

Romania at this Conference1 (Cluj, 29-30th Sept. 1997) to be opened for a fresh look of this
scripture, because 1Cor 11:2-16 caused many interpretations until now, which contradicted
each other.2 We should consider the hardly understandable nature of this passage, and any
kind of interpretation must be received with a certain measure of reservation. Our explanation
also will not answer all the questions, and will not be the absolute competent and infallible,
but we believe, that the Holy Spirit will lead us in the truth. We are interested what is the will
of God, and He will show us, if we are ready to accept that.
Let me mention too, that at any kind of interpretation, is necessary to not bind
ourselves to traditions, conservative practices or intentions of innovation. We should bound
ourselves only to what the Bible says. And now, let us read this passage.

„2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the

teachings, just as I passed them on to you.
3
Now I want you to realize that the head of the woman in Christ, and the
head of Christ is God. 4Every men who prays or prophesies whit his head covered
dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head
uncovered dishonors her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a
woman does not cover her head, she should had her hair cut off; and if it is a
disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

1
Hungarian Baptist Church of Cluj-Napoca, 29th - 30th September 1997.
2
The most evident contradiction is seen in the practices of our churches: the majority of our woman members
don’t know how they should appear in public worship services: to cover their head or not, and why. The
increasing number of uncovered woman heads in our churches are influenced by other cultures, and the time
arrived, to interpret and apply the Scripture correctly for ourselves.

1
 7
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God;
but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman
from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this
reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on
her head.
11
In the Lord, however, woman is not independent from man, nor is man
independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of
woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a
woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of
things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a
woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If
anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice - nor do the
churches of God.3

II. The structure of the passage

This passage has three major parts. The first one (11:2-6) and the third one (11:13-
15) presents the reasons of the appearance in public worship, required by Paul. The second
one (11:7-12) explains the functional differences between man and woman, within the limits
of equality, according to the order of God’s creation. Started by a sentence of introduction (
verse 2), the subject is closed by a sentence of conclusion (verse 16).
The first and third parts are raising cultural issues, where a clear command is made
for woman’s head-covering. The main reasons are: the shame of being uncovered (4-6), and
the teaching of „nature of things” (13-16). In the second part (7-12), where non-cultural
issues are discussed, the command for women to cover their heads is omitted, and the head-
covering is replaced with the „sign of authority”, though this brakes the parallel structure of
the former part.
In 7:1-11:1 Paul is answering the questions related with the ethical life of the church,
and after that, in 11:2-34 he regulates the worship of the church. This is followed by the
teachings about spiritual gifts (12-14) and resurrection (15). So, the woman’s head-covering
belongs to the regulations related with the worship of the church.
The requirement for woman to have their head covered is introduced by Paul with
theological foundations. The 3rd verse begins a new paragraph with the word de („[but]

3
New International Version, International Bible Society, Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

2
now“).4 Is Paul continuing to answer the questions of the Corinthians, as he did in 7:1 („Now,
for the matters you wrote about...”), and 8:1 („Now about food sacrificed to idols...“), or he
begins to explain something considered important by him, but was not asked by the church? I
consider, that he is quoting again from the letter sent to him by the Corinthians, continuing to
clarify things as he did in previous chapters. The discussion about the public worship and the
Lord Supper raised more questions, and before the teaching about the use of spiritual gifts in
public worship, the Lord Supper - which includes the authority of man over woman - was a
good subject for transition to the 12-14 chapters.
In the 2. verse we find a typical pauline practice: he begins a hard subject with a
positive encouragement.5 The Paradoseij here doesn’t means traditions, which has no
authority in the church, but such regulations which were ordered by him, and were passed to
them orally, a kind of body of Christian catechesis.6 Is also possible, that this word means the
whole teaching of Paul, taught orally (Acts 18:1-17) or in writing (1Cor 5:9).7 Usually the
opening praise is followed by hard rebuke (11:2-14:40), because these „traditions” were
broken by the Corinthians.

III. The reasoning

After a gentle introduction (in 11:3-16) Paul is presenting five major reasons, why
the woman is under the authority of man, and why she needs to wear a head-covering.

1. The first reason: the divine order, (3-6):

which is, that the head and glory of woman is the man, the head of man is Christ, the
head of Christ is God. There is a principle of leadership, a principle of the „head”. There is a
hierarchical structure dominating the universe, which is originated in God, and is leading
downwards to Christ, the man and the woman. This principle is essential for understanding
this passage of Scripture, because this is also the main reason of this kind of Christian
appearance of women. Because this principle was rejected by the Corinthian Christian
women, they have thrown away also the sign of this principle: the head-covering.
The „head” (kefalh) may have the meaning of authority or/and origin. More
„authority”, but „origin” is also possible (see verse 8). Christ being under the authority of

4
Harper’s Bible Commentary, James L. Mays, General Editor, Harper and Row Publishers, 1988, p. 1182-1183.
5
As he did in 1:1-9.
6
The Message of 1 Corinthians, David Prior, Inter-Varsity Press, 1993, p. 179.
7
This is one of his „lost” letters.

3
God is mentioned not only here (see also 3:23; 15:28; 8:6; and Col 1:15-16). If a man is
praying or prophesying with a covered head (with a hat, turban, etc.) dishonors his head, i.e.
Christ (11:3).8 The subordination (not inferiority!) of women is originated in the authority of
the „head”. If kefalh would mean only origin, this would lead us to the conclusion, that
man is the origin of woman, and God is the origin of Christ. This is exactly the heretic
teaching of Arius! However, is necessary to consider both meanings to have the right
conclusion. Paul is using this word in the first part as „authority”, and in the third part as
„origin”. The apostle is referring to the order of God as it is seen in creation, using its
„patriarchal” and „ontological” meanings.9
We do not know exactly, what could be the covering on the head of men, which
according to Paul dishonored his „head”, but this is parallel with the teaching about the head-
covering or woman. Forbidding for man to cover his head during prayer or prophesy, is
coming from the presented divine order. The neglect of head-covering at a Corinthian woman
showed that the difference between man and woman was not considered, because the covered
head of woman was showing that she is under the authority of her husband. In summary we
may say: a) men were not covering there had, but women does; b) this was a sign of
distinction between man and woman. The head-covering was a sign of femininity both in
Jewish and Roman culture. If a woman was not veiled in that time, she acted so unwomanly,
that she should cut her hair as well.10
Continuing the subject of public worship, it seems, that Paul is contradicting himself,
when he mentions the women praying and prophesying in the church. In 14:34-35 he says:
„women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in
submission as the Law says.” In our passage however we find women praying and
prophesying! He is not forbidding these, but regulating their practice, and laying down the
way women should be dressed when engaging in it.11 But the ministry of women in the
church is a different subject...
The woman (gunh) in verse 5-6 may be the married woman (see verse 4), but
because marriage is not mentioned here at all, we have to accept, that gunh is referring to all
women, in relationship with men, in worship services.

8
We may argue upon who is the „head”: we may interpret for both: the man’s head, and Christ, but following
the reasoning of Paul is obvious, that he meant at this time by the „head” Christ, who is the head of man.
9
Harper’s Bible Commentary, James L. Mays, General Editor, Harper and Row Publishers, 1988, p. 1183.
10
Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, F. W. Grosheide, Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1984, p. 254.
11
1 Corinthians, The Tindale New Testament Commentaries, General Editor: The Rev. Canon Leon Morris,
Inter-Varsity Press Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990, p. 150.

4
 Again we may summarize: a) marriage is not mentioned here; b) the general
principle of man being the head of woman is applied; c) the question of head-covering refers
to the difference between man and woman.

2. The second reason: the order of creation, (7-9; 1-12):

which is, that woman is created for- and from man, and not the opposite. The man is
the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man. In this case, the covering of
the head at women is the sign of subordination and obedience to her husband. If she does not
do that, she dishonors her head. Again, the „head” may mean both the hierarchical and
physical head. The man being (or probably representing, see v. 25) the image and glory og
God looks back to Gen 1,26-27, where man displays the authority of God on earth. Every
woman taking a new name at her marriage ceremony tacitly affirms the pauline teaching
about woman being under the authority of man.12

3. The third reason: because of the angels, (10):

Angels should subordinate themselves to God, and woman should be an example for
them in subordination (1Cor 11:10. 4:9. Ef 3:10-11, Eccles 5:6, 1Tim 5:21). Angels are
spectators of what is going on in the church, and if women would appear with uncovered head
in a worship service, this would show a lack of God’s wisdom. The pagan women -
priestesses - appeared with uncovered or shaved head at the idol’s temple: the Christian
women could not have the same appearance, because this would be a shame even in Corinth.
The angels, unlike the artistic portrayal, are described by the Bible as having six
wings, though two was enough for flying. (Is 6:2) Probably they were extraordinarily
beautiful, and in the presence of God they covered their face and body. Humans are attracted
to the beauty, being inclined to worship that. But the worship of angels would steal God of
His glory (Apoc 19,10). In the same way the married woman offered her glory to the man: the
uncovered head is not decent for her. The hair is a natural covering of her head, and this is
beautiful: for this reason, the head together with the hair should be covered, according to the
example of the angels.13
The women in the church of Corinth misunderstood the teaching of Paul about the
equality between man and woman in Christ .14 So, they considered, being like angels, without
sexual difference, women may have the same appearance with man. If their is no difference,

12
The Wicliffe Bible Commentary, Charles F. Pfeiffer, Everestt F. Harrison, editors, Moody Press, Chicago
1977, p. 1247.
13
Bible Knowledge Commentary, John Walwoord, Roy B. Zuck, Editors, Victor Books, 1984, p. 530.
14
Gal 3,28

5
why have a different appearance? But as angels are under the authority of God, women are
under the authority of man. This is a biblical principle, even if is less and less accepted in a
more and more feminist society. The sign of this principle in Corinth was the head-covering.
The woman should have a feminine appearance, even if she is equal with man. „The woman
ought to have a sign of authority on her head (verse 10).

4. The fourth reason: this is what is proper, (13-15):

even the nature of things teaches that. The rhetoric question: „Is it proper for a
woman to pray to God with her hair uncovered?” (verse 13) - has an obvious answer: no, is
not proper. The long hair for woman is natural, and this requires a veil. It is proper for woman
to have a natural covering (their hair) and a physical covering (a clothe) over her head.
According to Paul this is obvious, proper, natural, goes without saying. Their long hair makes
woman distinctive from man. But how long should be the hair of a woman, or how short
should be a hair of a man? So long, that at first sight you should recognize about that: is she a
woman, or is he a man. If you cannot tell at first, but after that you realize, that she is a
woman: her hair was too short. If he was a man: his hair was too long. If this is a culturally
universal practice - is hard to say, but the major point of the apostle is undeniable: God has
made men and woman different.15
According to Paul it goes without saying, that if women appears in public with
uncovered head, with this she dishonors her head (i.e. her husband), because this is like
having her head shaved as a penalty for adultery. This is in Numbers 5:18: „And the priest
shall set the woman before the Lord and uncover the woman’s head...” (Authorized King
James Version)16

5. The fifth reason: this is our tradition, (16):

Paul is clearly saying, what is the practice in the churches of God. Keeping the status
quo of the covered head of women is not a new thing: this is done everywhere in the churches
at Paul’s time. In the ancient culture (and even now) this was a common practice especially at
eastern countries, that women had their head covered. The Greeks and Romans have done the
same. Only the public prostitutes had an uncovered head, without a veil. In the Corinthian
church, women praying and prophesying with uncovered head would identify Christianity
with adultery.

15
The Message of 1 Corinthians, David Prior, Inter-Varsity Press, 1993, p. 184.
16
The NIV translates as „she shall loosen her hair...” instead of „uncover her had” - the Hebrew expression
allows both translation.

6
 This (Christian) practice is in opposition with the canon of Jews, where praying or
prophesying was allowed for men only with a covered head. The reason is, that man is not
worthy to stand before God with an uncovered face (head). Also, according to Jewish law,
women are not allowed to appear on the street with uncovered head. It is true, that this
statement cannot be proved entirely. But there may be an influence from Jewish culture in the
requirements of 1Cor 11. Women could not take off their veil, or any other kind of clothing
used to cover their head.
The covered head is an old biblical practice, though this was not the sign of
obedience, subordination, and marriage at that time. Let us see the following passages:
„ (Gen 24,65) „So she took her veil and covered herself.”
„ (Gen 38,14. 19) „So, she (Tamar) took off her widow’s clothes, covered herself with a
veil...” „After she left, she put off her veil, and put on her widow’s clothes again.”
„ (Ruth 3:15) „He (Boaz) also said: bring me he shawl you are wearing and hold it out.
When she did so, he poured into it six measures of barley...”
„ (Song 5:7) „The watchmen... took away my cloak (my veil - KJV)...”
„ (Is 3,18-23) „In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and
headbands and crescent necklaces... and veils ...the headdresses...”
„ Also we may find references in 3Macc 4:6 („young women, who just entered into the
marriage room to start their marriage life, had changed their joy for wailing, had thrown
dust on their myrrh-fragranced hair, and were taken without a veil”), and in the teachings
of the Mishna, Babilonean Talmud, and writings of Plutarch and Apuleins.17
The practice and nature of head-covering during the history was changed, until in our
times the cloak or other piece of garment has a part to cover the head, without being a
separate piece of clothe. In Corinthian times this clothe was a big shawl or scarf, which
covered the whole head, but leaving the face free.

IV. The cultural situation of the Corinthians

The practice and nature of head-covering during the history was changed, until in our
society this is no more the sign of subordination of women. In Corinth the principle of
subordination was rejected first, both in church and in society and family. Than, the next step
was to throw away the distinctive sign of this subordination, the head-covering. But,
according to Paul this does not mean, that they are more free than others, but means a not

17
Bible Knowledge Commentary, John Walwoord, Roy B. Zuck, Editors, Victor Books, 1984, p. 529.

7
proper behavior, which dishonors their head, their husband and their person. If the head of a
woman is uncovered or shaved is equally shameful. This is a clear picture of an ancient
culture, not peculiarly Corinthian, because Paul argues with the words, that „neither the
churches of God”.18
The command and teaching of Paul was valid and obligatory for the Corinthians. The
question is, how we should understand this for our time? If this is valid and compulsory today
too, than people in Africa, Europe, China, America, Greenland, Hungary and Romania should
obey the word of God in the same way.
The next question is related with the form of head-covering. The ancient Corinthian
practice today is not used any more. If the practice was changed, than the scarves of different
forms, the hats, shawls, hoods, caps or bonnets can equally make a „sign of authority”. This
is, if we apply the principle with a contemporary practice.
We must agree, that the Scripture must be applied. But the question is: what must be
applied from this? Because if we interpret the head-covering as a sign of femininity, than we
have to speak about the clothes, which in our culture makes the woman different from man.
Even hats, trousers and skirts are made differently for woman than for man.
The opinion, that the head-covering was a symbolic act, is not a reason for its
rejection, because the sacrifices, priesthood of the Old Testament and the baptism and Lord
Supper of the New Testament are also symbolical acts.
The rejection of the functional differences between man and woman: this is
dishonoring and shameful in every culture. In Corinth the sign for this was the uncovered
head. So, Paul is commanding them to cover their head, as it was proper and natural in the
Roman-Greek culture.19
In our time things are quite changed. Asking the same thing is sometimes exactly the
opposite, what Paul asked them to do, because what is proper and natural is changed. Using a
similar clothe for head-covering would be very strange and striking: and this is the very thing
Paul was forbidding them to do. He wanted the Corinthian women to dress and behave
according to the practice and culture of the Corinthians, and showing in their behavior the
functional difference between man and woman. There are shameful and unproper dressings in
our culture too: Paul would forbid them in the same way, if he would live in our time.
We find in the New Testament more cultural-dependent commands, which are not
applied today in the same way. „Do not go for judgment before the ungodly” (1Cor 6:1-8),
„Let no debt remain outstanding” (Rom 13:8), „I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands

18
The Wicliffe Bible Commentary, Charles F. Pfeiffer, Everestt F. Harrison, editors, Moody Press, Chicago
1977, p. 1248.
19
Harper’s Bible Commentary, James L. Mays, General Editor, Harper and Row Publishers, 1988, p. 1183.

8
in prayer” (1Tim 2:8), „You also should wash one another’s feet” (John 13:14), „Do not
swear at all” (Mt 5:34), „Greet one another with a holy kiss” (1Cor 16:20), etc. The head-
covering had also a cultural characteristic. What is proper and what is the practice is
completely changed. We have among the unchanged things the divine order and the order of
creation. We have to keep the principle of difference between man and woman, and wives
being under the authority of their husband, but we may change the symbol of that. Woman
may not assume or usurp man’s place, but she may symbolize this truth differently.20 Today
very few people know, that the head-covering is the sign of authority. More and more other
signs are applied, like the wedding ring or taking the last name of the husband. This is
something, which goes without saying in our culture.
This is the situation today. But is this good?

V. Obedience and the accusation of legalism

The covered head of women, the absence of jewelry, the washing of the feet of the
saints are considered by many (see: mennonites) as standards and testimonies of obedience to
the word of God. Those, who reject these practices are saying, that all these are mere
legalisms: like the pharisees and the scribes in Jesus’ times, they are hypocrites, and are not
holier, than those, who are not doing the same. This may be true, but sometimes even those
are called „pharisees”, „fanatics”, „legalists”, who want to take the Scriptures seriously, and
applying it consistently. The word „legalist” is used in our churches in the same way, as
Luther used the „Ketzer” for the anabaptists, making an irony about their desire for holiness.
Is legalism, if somebody is asking women to cover their head during the worship?
To answer this question, let us see, what is legalism. Legalism is closely related with
the view, that we can earn merits and salvation by works. The legalist keeps the law, but
without being interested in its goal. He interprets obedience as something beings rewarded.
Even if this attitude has positive features, basically is wrong and leads to hell. Because if
somebody does not trust in the grace of God, but in his obedience and „standard-behavior”,
than for him Christ helps nothing. In this understanding, covering the head for women,
without the meaning of being the sign of obedience and authority, is not more, than legalism.
The signified thing worth more, than the sign, as the regeneration means more, than baptism.
A form of godliness denying its power means nothing (2Tim 3:5).

20
Matthew Henry’s Commantary, vol. VI, World Bible Publishers, Iowa Falls, Iowa, U.S.A., p. 561.

9
 Obedience is not the condition for salvation, but the consequence, the result of that.
We do not obey to be saved, but because we are saved. Obedience is the fruit of a life being
under authority, and true faith is always followed by obedience. This is a basic feature of a
Christian life. A believer obeys his Lord, because loves Him. The legalistic obeys Him,
because trusts in his own righteousness, and believes that if he meets the standards at least
51%, than he will be saved. Obedience may mean legalism, but not all obedience is originated
in legalism.
Jesus Christ required obedience from His followers: „You are my friends, if you do
what I command” (John 15:14). „If you love me, you will obey what I command” (John
14:15). „Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me” (John
14:21). „The man who says ‘I know Him’, but does not do what he commands, is a liar”
(1John 2:4). Now, if somebody interprets the head-covering of women as obedience toward
the word of God, is not bad. But if somebody misinterprets it according to his disobedient and
carnal heart, that is a sin against God (not against men).
We have to consider, that a new believer, who trusted the Lord, step by step is
lightened what it means to be obedient to the Lord. A person like this will not obey
requirements, which are empty or without meaning. She will obey the word of God, if
understands, that this is required by the Lord: she will not obey human commands, but she
will obey the Lord because of love. Repentance cannot be obtained by church decisions or
demands.
On the other side the legalist may obey the word of God, keeping all the commands,
but not because of love. May be the legalist more obedient than a believer, but the believer
will be saved, not him. The legalist may have a covered head, when the other will serve the
Lord with a humble and meek spirit, in holiness, and uncovered head. If the legalist will
repent, and will not trust in his works, he will not be less obedient, but he will continue to
obey the Lord with love and humility. And the woman with an uncovered head also may
understand, that her behavior is a stumbling block for others and hinders the work of the
gospel, and she will cover her head, without saying.
For a real solution we need a revival. This would solve all these questions. Is a
general experience, that after the miracle of repentance is not necessary to explain how to
behave toward the other sex, how to be dressed, how long may be the skirt, the hair, how
much may watch the TV, cover the head or not: that is because beginning with that he is
ready to deny himself and do what the Lord is asking him to do.

10
 VI. Conclusion

The general understanding is, that Christians should dress and behave according to
the practice and custom of our culture, if this is not in contradiction with a biblical principle.
For this reason the marriage ring became acceptable and wide-spread in our churches,
because this is a question which is not affecting our salvation.21 But Rom 12:2, „Do not
conform any longer to the patern of this world”, John 15:19, „You do not belong to the
world”, and 1Cor 10:31, „Whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” and other passages
are referring to this subject too. The Bible does not change, but the world around us is
continually changing. It is true, that the marriage ring is not any more a sign of worldliness.
Fifty years ago the radio, the pants, the tie meant worldly lifestyle. There is a similar
understanding today about TV and video. In future other „worldly” things and practices will
take their places, which will require a firm attitude against them, for a specific period of time,
until other new things will take their place.
Each command may be alluded and elegantly rejected with apparent legitimate
arguments, labeling as legalism, if somebody does not have the intention o obey the word of
God. We can see in our society, that the distinctive signs between male and female are
continually disappearing. It may be seen in dressing, in wearing of hair, in taking the places in
the churches... Together with this we are testimonies of the shaking and despising of authority
at many levels. The problem is not that women are not covering their head in the church, but
the rejection of the obedience to their husbands at first. They want to be emancipated: as
slaves were freed, now they discuss about the liberation of women and children. But the
world cannot say what is correct: only the word of God may do that. Each symbol requires
explanation and teaching, without this remains only an empty ceremony. The outside
appearance usually is a faithful mirror of the internal change. The scarf may be a testimony,
and the lack of that an offence against God.
We are not fighting for a piece of clothe, but for the implementation of obedience.
Not against jewelry, but for the beauty of humility and chastity. It is also true that at persons
with jewelry, there is a lack of humility and decency. In the same way, women with
uncovered head are suborned and disobedient. But we cannot miss the target! It worth nothing
to raise standards, asking a special kind of dress and behavior. Is better to be obedient without
a covered head, than to be disobedient with a covered head. (Naturally, the ideal is to have
both the sign, and the signified thing together.22)

21
These practices are considered in relation to the culture of the Hungarian people in Romania.
22
The Wicliffe Bible Commentary, Charles F. Pfeiffer, Everestt F. Harrison, editors, Moody Press, Chicago
1977, p. 1248.

11
Bibliography

1. Grosheide, F. W., Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Eerdmans

Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1984.
2. Matthew Henry’s Commantary, vol. VI, World Bible Publishers, Iowa Falls, Iowa, U.S.A.
3. Mays, James L., General Editor, Harper’s Bible Commentary, Harper and Row Publishers,
1988.
4. Morris, Canon Leon, General Editor, The Tindale New Testament Commentaries, 1
Corinthians, Inter-Varsity Press Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.
5. Pfeiffer, Charles F., Harrison, Everest F., editors, The Wicliffe Bible Commentary, Moody
Press, Chicago 1977.
6. Prior, David, The Message of 1 Corinthians, Inter-Varsity Press, 1993.

7. Walwoord, John, Zuck, Roy B., Editors, Bible Knowledge Commentary, Victor Books,
1984.

12