I recently read a popular Torah teacher explain that he doesn’t believe women are required to wear head coverings because he was not aware of any commandment in the Torah saying women should have their heads covered.
Ouch. Is that actually true?
I can appreciate his desire to establish doctrine from Scripture rather than from tradition, especially since the Torah repeatedly warns us not to add to Yehovah’s commandments (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32). However, I’ve been pondering whether the absence of an explicit command in the first five Books of Moses is sufficient reason to dismiss the instructions Paul gives in 1 Corinthians 11:2–16.
Paul makes several statements concerning head coverings in this passage, and when he explains his reasoning, he appeals directly to the creation of Adam and Eve. Since the creation account is recorded in Genesis, Paul is quite literally making an appeal from the Torah. I believe this deserves a closer examination before we conclude that head coverings are merely an outdated cultural custom.
The first question concerns how we interpret the Torah itself. Must every obligation be stated as an explicit command, or does Scripture also expect us to understand and apply principles revealed through its narratives and instructions?
For example, Numbers 15:38–40 commands the children of Israel to make tzitziot, or tassels, on the corners of their garments, yet the Torah does not give a complete description of the garments themselves. The command assumes a familiar style of clothing without prescribing every detail.
Similarly, Exodus 20:26 prohibits ascending the altar by steps that would expose nakedness, while Exodus 28:42 commands the priests to wear linen trousers extending from the waist to the thighs. These instructions specifically concern the priesthood, but we would not conclude that modesty is unnecessary for other Israelite men simply because the Torah does not give every man an identical clothing requirement. We recognize a broader principle concerning modesty, even though the precise clothing prescribed for the priests was particular to their service.
The apostles regularly reasoned from the Torah in this manner. In 1 Corinthians 9:9–14, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, which prohibits muzzling an ox while it treads grain, and applies the principle to the material support of those who preach the gospel. Moses did not explicitly mention financial support for gospel teachers in that command, but Paul recognized a principle extending beyond the immediate situation involving an ox.
Yeshua Himself reasons similarly in Matthew 19:4–6. When questioned about divorce, He appeals to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, explaining that Yehovah made humanity male and female and established that a man and his wife would become one flesh. From this creation account, Yeshua concludes that man should not separate what God has joined together. The Torah’s account of creation thus provides the foundation for His teaching about the permanence of marriage, even though Genesis 2 does not present that teaching in the form of a separate prohibition against divorce.
This brings me back to head covering and 1 Corinthians 11. Paul begins the passage by praising the Corinthians for remembering him and keeping the traditions he delivered to them (verse 2). He then establishes an order of headship in verse 3, followed by instructions concerning men and women praying or prophesying with their heads covered or uncovered. In verses 8–9, he explains, “For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man” (NKJV). This is an unmistakable reference to Genesis 2:18–23. Whatever conclusions we eventually reach about the precise application of head coverings, we should acknowledge that Paul does not establish his argument merely upon Corinthian social customs. He appeals to the way Yehovah created man and woman. The foundation of his reasoning is found in the Torah.
I want to examine several earlier Torah passages before returning to the details of Paul’s argument, beginning with Genesis 3:21. After Adam and Eve sinned, Yehovah made tunics of skin and clothed them. The Hebrew word translated “tunics” is kuttonot, the plural of kuttonet (כֻּתֹּנֶת), referring to a tunic or garment. We aren’t given a detailed description of these garments, so it would be impossible to prove from this passage alone that Eve wore a covering over her head. Nevertheless, it is significant that Yehovah Himself provided clothing for Adam and his wife. This establishes an early biblical connection between clothing, nakedness, and the provision of appropriate covering. It does not tell us exactly what a woman’s clothing should look like, but it does establish that clothing has significance beyond personal preference.
A more specific example appears in Genesis 24:64–67, when Rebekah arrives to meet Isaac. According to verse 65, Rebekah asks Abraham’s servant who the man is walking in the field. When the servant identifies him as Isaac, she takes her veil and covers herself. The Hebrew word translated “veil” is tsa’if (צָעִיף), referring to a covering or veil. I find the timing particularly interesting. Rebekah has been traveling with Abraham’s servant, accompanied by her nurse and attendants, yet the narrative specifically mentions her putting on a veil when she learns that the approaching man is the one she is about to marry. The servant does not command her to cover herself, nor does Isaac issue any instruction. Rebekah apparently understands the significance of the occasion and acts accordingly.
Genesis 24 does not tell us whether Rebekah continued wearing her veil throughout married life. However, the passage unquestionably associates her act of veiling with the man she is about to marry. Immediately afterward, Genesis 24:67 tells us that Isaac brought Rebekah into Sarah’s tent, took her as his wife, and loved her. Rebekah’s covering therefore appears in the context of entering the marriage relationship, not merely as an unexplained article of ordinary clothing. This seems to me an important detail when considering whether the head covering discussed by Paul may have been associated particularly with wives.
Another passage worth examining is Numbers 5:11–31, which describes the procedure involving a wife whose husband suspects her of adultery. In verse 18, the NKJV states that the priest shall stand the woman before Yehovah and “uncover the woman’s head.” The Hebrew verb translated “uncover” is para’ (פָּרַע), meaning to loosen, release, uncover, or remove a restraint. Jeff Benner’s Ancient Hebrew Lexicon includes uncovering the head and removing clothing within the meaning of this word.
What I find particularly interesting is how the same Hebrew word, para’, is used elsewhere in the Torah. Let’s compare three passages from Leviticus, paying attention to what happens to a person’s head.
- Leviticus 10:6 — Moses instructed Aaron and his two remaining sons, Eleazar and Ithamar, not to “uncover (para’) your heads” or tear their clothes. They were not permitted to observe the usual signs of mourning after the deaths of Nadab and Abihu.
- Leviticus 13:45 — A person suffering from leprosy was instructed to wear torn clothing, with “his head bare (para’),” and to cover his mustache while crying, “Unclean! Unclean!”
- Leviticus 21:10 — The high priest, who had been anointed and consecrated to wear the sacred garments, was specifically forbidden to “uncover (para’) his head” or tear his clothes.
Notice that all three passages describe a person’s head being uncovered or left uncovered. Two of them specifically concern priests, who were commanded to wear head coverings as part of their sacred garments (Exodus 28:4, 40). Interestingly, the ancient Greek translation of Leviticus 21:10 also supports the interpretation that a head covering was being removed.
When we compare these passages with Numbers 5:18, where the priest was instructed to “uncover (para’) the woman’s head,” I believe there is good reason to consider that he was removing an actual covering from the married woman’s head, rather than simply rearranging her hair.
Numbers 5 remains significant because the woman involved is specifically a wife whose faithfulness to her husband has been questioned. She is not necessarily guilty, since the procedure addresses a situation in which adultery is suspected but has not been established. Nevertheless, the priest’s action concerning her head covering forms part of the prescribed ceremony. This suggests that the ordinary appearance of a married woman’s head was meaningful enough that changing it publicly could serve a particular purpose. Later Jewish interpreters commonly understood Numbers 5:18 in connection with the custom of married women covering their hair, although those interpretations should not be confused with an explicit command in the Torah itself. When considered alongside Rebekah’s veil, the passage provides another reason to investigate the relationship between head coverings and marriage.
Numbers 30 introduces another distinction that I believe has received too little attention in discussions of this subject. This chapter addresses vows made by women and the circumstances under which a father or husband could annul certain vows. A young, unmarried daughter living in her father’s household was subject to her father’s authority in this matter. A married woman was similarly subject to particular authority exercised by her husband. However, Numbers 30:9 states, “Also any vow of a widow or a divorced woman, by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her” (NKJV). A widow or divorced woman no longer has a husband who may annul her vows. The Torah therefore recognizes a meaningful distinction between a woman who is married and one whose marriage has ended.
I realize that Numbers 30 addresses vows rather than clothing, and I am not suggesting that it independently establishes a command concerning head coverings. However, it does demonstrate that the Torah does not place all women in identical relationships to male authority. A wife has a particular covenant relationship to her husband, while a widow or divorced woman no longer occupies that relationship. If a head covering represents a wife’s acknowledgment of her husband’s headship, then it seems reasonable to consider whether the practice would apply differently to women who are not married. The question is not whether widows and divorced women possess authority of their own in every conceivable circumstance, but whether they remain under the specific marital authority that the covering may represent.
This possibility becomes even more interesting when we examine the Greek wording of 1 Corinthians 11. In verse 3, Paul states that the head of every man is Messiah, the head of woman is man, and the head of Messiah is God. The Greek word anēr (ἀνήρ) may mean either “man” or “husband,” while gynē (γυνή) may mean either “woman” or “wife.” The intended meaning must be determined by context, since Greek does not always distinguish these relationships with separate words as English does. Thus, Paul’s statement may be understood as referring to a husband being the head of his wife. This would be consistent with Ephesians 5:22–33, where Paul explicitly discusses the relationship between husbands and wives and again appeals to Genesis 2:24.
This interpretation is not without difficulty, since Paul also makes statements concerning the creation and interdependence of men and women generally in 1 Corinthians 11:11–12. It would be premature to insist that every occurrence of gynē throughout the passage must mean “wife.” Nevertheless, the marital interpretation is linguistically possible and fits the creation account upon which Paul bases his argument. It also fits the earlier Torah examples we’ve considered, in which the covering or uncovering of a woman’s head occurs within the context of her relationship to a husband. I believe these connections deserve careful consideration rather than assuming from the beginning that Paul’s instruction must apply equally to all women, regardless of marital status. I believe he is saying only a married woman needs to cover her head.
Another objection frequently raised is that a woman’s natural hair is already the covering Paul requires. First Corinthians 11:15 states that a woman’s long hair is her glory and that her hair has been given to her for a covering. Some therefore conclude that Paul is not instructing women to wear an additional garment, but is simply discussing appropriate hair length. I understand why this interpretation is appealing, since Paul explicitly mentions hair as a covering. However, I believe the argument encounters difficulties when the earlier verses are considered, especially when Paul’s corresponding instructions for men are applied consistently.
In verse 4, Paul states that a man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonors his head. If the covering discussed in verse 5 is simply a woman’s natural hair, would the same reasoning imply that a man dishonors Messiah by possessing hair on his head? (Bald men, rejoice!)
Clearly, advocates of the hair-only interpretation do not generally mean this. They instead understand Paul to be contrasting long hair on women with short hair on men, a distinction he discusses in verses 14–15. Nevertheless, this requires us to determine whether Paul means long hair throughout the entire passage or whether he is discussing an additional covering and later using natural hair to illustrate his reasoning. I find the latter interpretation more convincing, especially because of verse 6.
In 1 Corinthians 11:6, Paul writes, “For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered” (NKJV). Notice that Paul distinguishes between being uncovered and having the hair cut off or shaved. If being uncovered already meant having short hair, why would Paul tell the uncovered woman to be shorn also? The distinction makes better sense if the covering is something separate from her natural hair. Paul appears to be saying that if a woman refuses the covering, she might as well accept the additional disgrace associated with having her hair removed. This reading allows both parts of the comparison to retain their meaning.
The Greek vocabulary is also worth considering. In the earlier verses, Paul uses forms of katakalyptō, meaning to cover or veil. In verse 15, where he refers to hair as a covering, he uses the noun peribolaion, a word referring to a covering or something wrapped around. We shouldn’t assume that different Greek words always describe different objects, but the distinction supports the possibility that Paul is discussing a cloth covering in the earlier verses while using a woman’s naturally long hair as an illustration later in the passage. Therefore, I am persuaded that Paul’s instruction concerns an additional covering rather than hair alone.
The next question concerns when the covering is required. Here I believe we should apply Paul’s instructions to men and women with the same care. Verse 4 refers to a man “praying or prophesying,” while verse 5 refers to a woman “who prays or prophesies.” Paul identifies the same activities in both cases. He does not explicitly prohibit men from ever wearing anything on their heads, nor does he explicitly require women to remain covered during every ordinary activity. If a man is working in his barn during a cold Michigan winter, I see no reason why wearing a warm hat would violate 1 Corinthians 11. No, Paul’s instruction specifically concerns praying or prophesying, not protecting oneself from cold weather. By the same reasoning, we should be cautious about insisting that a wife must wear a head covering continuously when the specific activities Paul actually mentions are prayer and prophecy.
There is still a legitimate question concerning whether Paul has congregational prayer specifically in view or whether the instruction also applies to private prayer. The surrounding chapters address the conduct of believers when gathered together, but Paul does not expressly limit the words “praying or prophesying” to a particular location. In verse 13, he again asks whether it is proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered. This confirms the connection to prayer while leaving some questions about its precise circumstances open for further study. My concern is that we should neither diminish Paul’s instruction nor expand it beyond what we can establish from the text. We should not add to or take away.
The head coverings worn by Israel’s priests provide another important consideration, especially when we examine the relationship between a head covering and authority. Exodus 28:4 includes a turban among Aaron’s sacred garments, while verse 40 commands headwear for his sons. These coverings were not merely permitted by Yehovah; they were specifically required as part of the priests’ service before Him. In Exodus 28:2, Yehovah describes the priestly garments as being made “for glory and for beauty,” while verse 35 connects Aaron’s prescribed clothing with his ministry before Yehovah. The priests were not acting simply as private individuals when they entered the Tabernacle. They had been consecrated and appointed to represent the people before Yehovah and to carry out the duties He had authorized. Their garments identified them with that sacred office. In this sense, the turban can reasonably be understood as part of the outward clothing that marked their appointed authority and service under Yehovah. The Torah does not explicitly call the turban a symbol of delegated authority, but that understanding is consistent with the purpose of the priestly garments as a whole.
This gives us another reason to consider the purpose of Paul’s instructions rather than treating the physical covering itself as inherently honorable or dishonorable. The Levitical priests wore head coverings while serving under Yehovah’s authority and acting according to His instructions. Paul, however, instructs men in the Corinthian assembly not to cover their heads while praying or prophesying. These passages concern different settings and different responsibilities, so we should not force one to cancel the other. Nevertheless, the comparison demonstrates that a covered male head is not inherently dishonorable in every religious circumstance. A covering may communicate something about the role or authority under which a person is acting. I believe this is an important consideration when we return to Paul’s instructions for wives.
The question of authority brings us to 1 Corinthians 11:10, which the NKJV renders, “For this reason the woman ought to have [a symbol] of authority on her head, because of the angels.” This verse appears especially relevant to the possibility that the covering signifies a woman’s relationship to her husband. However, the Greek wording deserves careful examination. The words “symbol of” are supplied by the translators. More literally, Paul says that the woman ought to have exousia (ἐξουσία), meaning “authority,” upon her head.
Interpreters disagree about precisely what this means. Some understand the covering as a sign of her husband’s authority, while others understand it as signifying the woman’s own authority to participate in prayer and prophecy.
The reference to angels introduces another question that the passage does not fully explain, although the Greek word angelos (ἄγγελος) can also mean “messenger.” If Paul has human messengers in view (ie. pastors, elders, etc.; for example, see Revelation 2:1), it is possible that an outward symbol of authority would communicate something about the relationship under which the woman was speaking or acting. In a marriage-centered interpretation, the covering might identify her as a wife speaking with the recognized authority of her household, ordinarily in agreement with her husband. This is an interesting possibility, especially in light of the Torah’s distinctions concerning marital authority.
Paul’s larger argument must inform our understanding of the verse. He begins by discussing headship, appeals to the relationship between man and woman established at creation, and then speaks of authority upon the woman’s head. It seems reasonable to understand the covering in relation to the order he has just described. If that order is specifically marital, the significance of Numbers 30 becomes clearer. A married woman possesses a covenant relationship with her husband that a widow or divorced woman no longer possesses. The covering may therefore serve as an outward acknowledgment of that marriage relationship, particularly when she approaches Yehovah in prayer.
This brings us to the familiar argument that head coverings were simply part of first-century Corinthian culture and are therefore unnecessary today. It is certainly true that clothing customs differ across cultures and that garments may communicate marital status, modesty, or social respectability in one society without communicating the same things in another. We should be willing to investigate those historical circumstances. However, the existence of a cultural custom does not automatically establish that Paul’s instruction was based solely upon that custom. His argument appeals to creation, authority, the angels, the distinction between men and women, and the practice of the assemblies. These are not merely observations about local Corinthian fashion.
Someone might reasonably respond that the underlying principle remains permanent while the outward expression changes with culture. I understand that distinction, and we make similar judgments concerning modest clothing in other circumstances. Nevertheless, the cultural interpretation must explain why Paul gives a concrete instruction concerning covering and uncovering the head and then supports it with theological reasoning drawn from Genesis. If the particular covering is no longer required, by what principle do we determine that Paul intended the practice to change? The fact that uncovered heads have become customary in modern American society is not, by itself, sufficient evidence. Neither is the fact that head coverings were customary in ancient societies sufficient to prove that the same garment must always be worn. We must allow Paul’s own reasoning to determine the meaning and continuing application of his instructions.
And he bases his argument on the Torah.
There is one final issue that I believe is even more important than the question of head coverings themselves. What authority do we give the writings of the apostles? The original objection by the online teacher was that no explicit command requiring women to cover their heads can be found in the Torah. But even if that were entirely true, would it settle the matter? Second Timothy 3:16 teaches that all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Peter recognizes Paul’s epistles alongside the other Scriptures in 2 Peter 3:15–16. If we recognize Paul’s writings as inspired Scripture, we cannot dismiss his instructions merely because Moses did not state them in identical language. He is certainly not contradicting Torah!
There is an important difference between saying that we do not yet understand precisely what Paul is commanding and saying that we are not obligated to obey him unless an identical command appears in the Torah. The former is a question of interpretation, and it deserves patient study. The latter raises a question concerning the authority of inspired Scripture itself. This is particularly important for those of us who seek to live according to the Torah. We should not imagine that honoring Moses requires us to disregard the inspired apostles who explain and apply Moses’ writings. Paul’s appeal to Genesis in 1 Corinthians 11 demonstrates that he understands his instruction to be rooted in the Torah rather than independent of it.
After considering these passages together, I am persuaded that there is a substantial biblical argument for married women covering their heads when praying or prophesying.
- Genesis establishes the order of marriage at creation.
- Rebekah covers herself upon approaching the man she is about to marry.
- Numbers 5 associates the uncovering of a married woman’s head with a ceremony concerning marital faithfulness.
- Numbers 30 distinguishes wives from widows and divorced women in matters involving a husband’s authority over vows.
- Paul then appeals to creation, discusses headship and authority, and gives specific instructions concerning covered and uncovered heads during prayer and prophecy.
These passages do not all speak to the same question with equal directness, but together they provide a coherent framework for understanding the practice.
For me, the marriage-centered interpretation makes good sense of the available evidence. I understand Paul’s instruction as calling a wife to acknowledge the marital order established by Yehovah, particularly when she comes before Him in prayer or prophecy.
I do not believe a head covering makes a woman more righteous than another woman, nor does it replace the responsibilities of husbands and wives to love, honor, and serve one another faithfully. I know godly women who sincerely desire to submit to their husbands but do not cover their heads. Therefore, I do not consider head covering a reliable measure of a woman’s character or the condition of her marriage.
Nevertheless, the fact that obedience must come from the heart does not make outward obedience unimportant. Scripture frequently uses visible practices to communicate spiritual realities, and I see no reason to dismiss such a practice merely because it has become uncommon in our society.
I first began writing about head coverings many years ago. In a blog post dated March 4, 2008, I explained that none of the arguments concerning modesty, culture, or even submission were the primary reason I had begun covering my head. I wrote, “To me this is an issue of the authority of Scripture.”
That remains the heart of the matter for me. Covering my head wasn’t politically correct then, and it certainly wasn’t a popular practice in most churches. I realized that it might make me appear unusual, and for that reason I preferred simple coverings that didn’t draw unnecessary attention. But I was learning to ask a much more important question: When Scripture tells me to do something, am I willing to obey, even when obedience requires me to lay aside my own preferences?
I remember asking myself why so many churches observe the instructions in the latter half of 1 Corinthians 11, concerning the bread and the cup, while dismissing the first half of the same chapter as merely cultural. Certainly, the two sections address different practices, and each must be interpreted according to its own context. Nevertheless, if we accept Paul’s instructions in verses 17–34 as relevant to believers today, shouldn’t we at least be willing to examine verses 2–16 with the same seriousness? What principle allows us to declare one instruction enduring and the other obsolete? There may be legitimate interpretive reasons for distinguishing them, but those reasons need to come from Scripture rather than from our discomfort with a particular practice.
In that earlier article, I used the picture of taking scissors to the Bible, cutting out whatever passages we didn’t particularly like. “Snip, snip,” I wrote. The concern behind it was serious. I don’t want to become so skilled at explaining difficult passages that I could explain away every instruction that challenged my preferences.
At the same time, I don’t want to accuse someone of rejecting Scripture simply because he understands this passage differently than I do. There is a genuine difference between careful interpretation and looking for an excuse not to obey. Only by honestly examining our reasoning can we guard against confusing the two.
Peter describes believers as a “peculiar people” in the language of the King James Version (1 Peter 2:9), or “His own special people” in the NKJV. We are called to belong to Yehovah, even when that makes us different from the world around us. Of course, being unusual doesn’t automatically make a practice righteous, any more than being popular makes it wrong. The issue is whether Yehovah has instructed us to do something. If He has, then obedience may require us to set aside our fears about what other people think. I’ve had to face that question in many areas of my life, and I have not always liked the answer.
Ultimately, I want to be persuaded by Scripture rather than by either modern custom or inherited tradition. If further study demonstrates that Paul intended something different from the interpretation I’ve proposed, I want to understand that as well. But his appeal to creation—to Torah—makes it difficult for me to regard head coverings as an unimportant Corinthian fashion, and his place among the inspired writers of Scriturr prevents me from setting his instruction aside simply because it does not appear as a separate command in Moses. I believe we should continue examining these passages together, allowing the Torah and the apostolic writings to inform one another, with the goal of understanding more fully how Yehovah desires His people to walk.
For my part, I began covering my head because I believed Scripture was asking me to do so. The more I have studied the passages, the more I have come to appreciate the connections between head covering, marriage, and the order Yehovah established at creation. But those connections were not the foundation of my willingness to obey. That foundation is my conviction that all Scripture is inspired and that Yehovah has the right to instruct me, even in things that seem small or unusual to the people around me. I don’t want to add to His commandments, and I certainly don’t want to take away from them. I simply want to understand what He has said and be willing to do it.
Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture in this blog post taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Leave a Reply