After publishing the Deep Dive Essay on the head covering, several readers have submitted questions either in response to the article or questions they had before paying for the article.

I’ve responded to most of these one-on-one, but thought I’d take the time to share my responses publicly in case you also had these questions.

Azariah asked a question and made the following observations:

1. Why is there so much emphasis in the anabaptist churches for women to wear something all the time whereas men can cover their heads whenever they want to and in some churches men are required to wear a head covering?

2. The passage says head covering. Not hair covering or a symbol.

3. There’s a lot of strife and church fights over the shape and size of said hair covering. None of them are actually head coverings and if it’s merely a symbol, then the size or style shouldn’t matter.

4. God has called many women to do powerful things for His kingdom that do not wear any type of so called head covering.

These four reasons have led me to believe that the passage in Corinthians 11 was specifically speaking to the Corinthian church. I don’t think it applies to us today.

My response:

Thanks for sharing, Azariah. You make some relevant observations. Here’s my response:

1. I do not know precisely why this has developed, but my hunch is that conservative Anabaptist churches have taught the head covering alongside many other cultural distinctives such as wearing a plain suit. This has turned it into a cultural tradition instead of a theological tradition. As a part of that, it’s become assumed it should be worn all the time even though the text says “when praying and prophesying.”

2. You are correct that the passage says “head covered” and “head uncovered.” Verse 10 goes on to say, “This is why a woman should have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”

3. You are correct that size and style don’t really matter. Paul makes no distinction of size or style. He just says “head covered” or “head uncovered.”

4. You are also correct that many women do powerful things for his kingdom even when they don’t wear a head covering. The tradition of wearing a head covering (or not wearing one, for men) is for the purpose of remembering each other’s place in Christ and by remembering each other’s place in Christ we walk in unity. If anyone preaches a notion that someone cannot do powerful work for the kingdom of God unless they wear a head covering, they’ve misunderstood the passage.

Ann shared:

I too, have a lot of questions about the head covering. One of the things I have a hard time with is that it’s not mentioned anywhere else in Scripture. Usually, when it’s something that is super important, you’ll find it in multiple places and books of the Bible. This leads me to believe it could very well be a Corinthian cultural thing of that time.

My response:

I appreciate your thoughts, Ann! 

While the head covering is not necessarily a theme throughout scripture—definitely not a theme in the New Testament—it actually is mentioned a few other places. 

Genesis 24:65 demonstrates covering one’s self in an act of honor and reverence.

…and asked the servant,“Who is that man in the field coming to meet us?” The servant answered,“It is my master.” So she took her veil and covered herself.

Numbers 5:18 demonstrates that a Jewish woman is going to have her hair up. We know from cultural backgrounds studies that this also included having it covered or wrapped (some suggest this was only required of married women, but there is debate about that).

After the priest has the woman stand before the LORD, he is to let down her hair and place in her hands the grain offering for remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy.

Isaiah 47:2 demonstrates how to strip one of their dignity and “lay bare their nakedness.” Isaiah is warning of judgment to come and speaking of Babylon as a “virgin daughter.”

I think for many of us, we were taught so narrowly about 1 Corinthians 11 that we may not be aware of how normative covering oneself actually was in Jewish culture and evidenced in the biblical texts. I didn’t even mention the places where it talks about men covering their heads, such as Leviticus 10:6, 13:45; Esther 6:12; and 2 Samuel 2:16.

But even if covering one’s head or not covering it is not mentioned any other place, I’m nervous of a hermeneutic that decides we don’t need to do anything with a passage because it’s only got one representation in the whole of scripture. Paul tells us that “All scripture is profitable for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2Tim. 3:16-17).

This means that everything within scripture serves the purpose of helping to train and equip us as men and women of God. 

We believe God will give us the Holy Spirit if we ask for it, right? Did you know that’s only mentioned one place in scripture? Luke 11:13 says,

If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?

Or take anointing someone with oil when they are sick. The only place this is instructed is in James 5:14-15:

Is anyone among you sick? He should call for the elders of the church, and they should pray over him after anointing him with olive oil in the name of the Lord.

I don’t think we should read the Bible only taking seriously what appears to be super important and readily discarding what is mentioned here or there. Rather, we should understand that all of it pushes forward a message about Jesus that seeks to transform our whole beings as we immerse ourselves in the message.

What does 1 Corinthians 11 have to do with that? It’s about honor and unity. The first sixteen verses have specifically to do with remembering (or honoring) each other’s place in Christ and, more directly, the authority men and women have in Christ.

Marty commented on Facebook:

I’m sure you will be as thorough as possible. I’m wondering what you’ll do with the glaring difference of conservative Anabaptist rules where the head covering rule is applied to all females including children or to confessed-believing females, and the quite clear text in Corinthians indicating that the teaching was directed in application to husbands & wives. My personal thought on the matter is that the rules of twisted scripture have everything to do with the widespread scourge of sexual abuse in conservative Anabaptist cultures. What Paul had to say to husbands & wives is applied to children, sexualizing them on a wide and sickening scale.

Here’s my response:

Good question. I actually don’t interact at all with who the uncovered/covered head specifically applies to. I’m skeptical that it is actually speaking of husbands and wives. The ESV renders ἀνὴρ as “husband” and γυνὴ as “wife,” but as far as I’m aware no other translation does. The words can go either way, to my understanding, and my guess is that the ESV renders it as such because of its complementarian bias. I actually think the text more resembles referencing man and woman in general… and that it likely refers to people of age (whatever age that may be in a particular culture).

I think to your point, however, the problem may have more to do with what we think the covered head means. If people teach and use the covered head as a sign of woman being in submission, I think it opens the doors to some of your observations above. I do not think the covered head serves a sign of submission. The text indicates it serving as authority or at least a sign of it.

Authority for what?

I would understand it serving as a sign of authority in Christ (or “in the Lord”). A woman does not give account or belong to man even though he may be her “head/master” and even though she came from him and in response to a longing man had (which is what I would understand Paul means by woman being “the glory of man”).

Another thing, that might play into what you reference above, is when a church mandates that women wear the head covering all the time. I don’t interact with this in this essay because I think the text is quite clear that it is discussing how we can show honor and remember each other’s place in Christ as we *pray* and prophesy.

*(But as I mentioned several times throughout the essay, this is a work in progress. I could be wrong… Many scholars have said this is one of the most challenging passages to interpret.)

Frank asked:

What role does verse three bring to the balance of this section of Scripture?

I responded:

Hi Frank. Good question! I’m going to paste an excerpt from the essay. Let me know if it answers your question, and feel free to share if you have thoughts on your question.

The passage does not read as though Paul is giving instruction, unlike the last half of 1 Corinthians 11. Rather, Paul is expressing gratefulness that they are maintaining in this tradition (vs. 2), but has the sense that either they are forgetting what the tradition is for or had never really heard what it’s for in the first place (vs. 3a).

The brief rundown of headship (God is head over Christ who is head over man who is head over woman) seems to be merely the introduction to helping them understand the purpose of this tradition (vs 3b).

A man having something on his head (body part) dishonors his head (Christ, vs. 4). A woman not having something on her head (body part) dishonors her head (man, vs. 5).

A man should not cover his head because he is the image and glory of God (vs. 7a). A woman is the glory of man (vs. 7b). Is woman being the glory of man signifying headship order or referencing the culmination of creation in woman coming from man (vs. 8 and Gen. 2:21-23)?

I suggest the latter.

This passage is not about putting women in their place but about explaining the authority both men and women have in Christ.

Verse 9 goes into how man was not made for woman but woman for man, again harkening back to the creation account where Adam longed for a helpmeet. In the creation account, both men and women are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27). Because women were made in response to the longing of man (Adam), they should have authority (or a symbol of authority) on their head (body part) so that man remembers she is not his to abuse because she too bears the image of God.

And yes, I would lean toward “because of the angels” being an allusion to Genesis 6. Almost as if Paul is suggesting that if these “sons of God” would have remembered that the “daughters of man” are also made in the image of God, they would not have abused them.

*(Side note, seeing something to be beautiful and taking for ones self is a theme throughout scripture — especially Genesis — as something evil. We see this with Eve and the fruit in Genesis 3, the “sons of God” and humanity as a whole in Genesis 6, Ham in Genesis 9, the people of Shinar in Genesis 11.)

In the Lord, women are not independent from men and men are not independent from women (vs. 11). After all, men now come from women in childbirth and all things come from God, anyway (vs. 12). Paul seems to be wanting to be careful that men do not presume license to hold power over women even though women were created in response to the longing of man (Adam).

So, back to my understanding of this text: The tradition of men not covering their heads and women covering their heads serve as signs for remembering each other’s place in Christ, and remembering each other’s place in Christ helps us walk in unity.

Excerpt from What’s the Big Deal about the Head Covering?

Frank responded:

My sense is that the order of verse three sets the stage for understanding the passage. No question about the relationship between God and Christ. The question occurs between Christ and man. Is man related to Christ in the same way as Christ is to God? If so we can proceed to the relationship between man and woman. If not, then man is not prepared to proceed to his relationship with woman. This understanding places the responsibility of man to be as submissive to Christ as Christ is to God. Only then is man in a place to proceed to his relationship with woman. If this is true, then the weight of this passage is placed squarely on man. My sense of how the passage is presented in many/most of our churches, would change dramatically if we could see the import of verse three and make the needed correctives.

To which I responded:

This is good, Frank. Thanks for sharing. I agree that that this passage has as much (or more) to do with men remembering their accountability to Christ as anything.

Hunter shared:

Philip Payne argues, among other things, that “head” refers to one’s source or point of origin and that the covering was not an external garment at all but a particular hairstyle. Of the views I studied, I personally found this one to be the most compelling. Anyway, I hope that this can be useful to you. 

My response:

Thanks for sharing Hunter, I enjoy hearing what others have processed as they study this.

I have seen scholars allude to the idea that some understand “head” as one’s source, but they often mention how that is debated among scholars. I’ve not really researched that in-depth, so I don’t have much to say on it. Without having studied it further, I do think that viewing “head” as source poses some potential logical and theological problems. 

If we understand it as a literal source, like woman being made from the rib of a man, then it doesn’t make sense that Christ would be the literal source of man. Dirt would be.

If we understand it as a spiritual source, man is not actually the spiritual source of woman. Christ is. That’s partly what I understand Paul to be getting at in verses 10-12. 

Having said all of that, this is an element I would have to study more in-depth before giving a conclusive response.

As far as the covering being a particular hairstyle, I think the text itself challenges that. Paul says, 

“…if a woman’s head is not covered, her hair should be cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should be covered.”

First of all, it would not make sense to then cut off her hair if we are assuming the covering (as the hair/hairstyle) is not on her head. Secondly, the Greek word is pretty clearly a veil or wrap of one’s self. Lastly, women (and men) covering or wrapping their hair was normative in Jewish, Greek, and Roman culture. So it’s not surprising to have the concept of covering one’s head with a hair wrap.

So What Is 1 Corinthians 11 All About?

1 Corinthians 11 is one of the most challenging passages for biblical scholars to interpret. There are cultural dynamics at play. Paul also makes allusions to things that don’t know for sure what he’s alluding to. 

In light of that, I will probably be reflecting on and studying this passage for the rest of my life. I may discover something about how I have been interpreting the passage is off base. Or maybe the things I think it might be referring to, but don’t know for sure, may be validated in deeper study. 

If you’re trying to process this yourself and would like a peek at someone else’s deep-dive into this text, you can check out my essay on What’s the Big Deal about the Head Covering? by clicking here.

Do this responses provide clarity or add more confusion? Feel free to share your feedback in the comments below.

Like this? Gain access to even more in-depth articles reconciling human experiences with God and His Word when you become a member of Unfeigned Christianity on Patreon.

Become a Patron!