Does the Bible Require Women to Wear a Head Covering?

Not many churches or Christian groups today require their female members to wear a head covering (kerchief) for worship or for continual use. It is mostly a thing of the past, but not everywhere. The custom continues to be practiced quite religiously amongst the Amish, Mennonites, Hutterites, Orthodox Russians among other Eastern nations, and others, some of which also tie the custom into a salvific requirement, and most of which also regulate rules about the size, shape, and specific cloth extraBiblically. Some view their head coverings as a banner of their religiosity and a symbol of status, and its become a 'sacred cow' to them. Majority of woman that wear head coverings did not arrive at their position by reading the Scriptures. Most couldn't even tell you where it says they should wear a head covering, if it says. They do it because of tradition (custom), and because it's ordered and dictated wheresoever they attend church. Forced compliance however is not submission — it’s just another means whereby Satan attempts to discredit the beauty and role of Christ-like submission and headship by love.

As Mennonite ourselves with roughly five hundred years of Mennonite/Anabaptist/Baptist heritage blood coursing through our circulatory system, for which we are deeply grateful, a very rich heritage of Biblical Christianity and sacrificial martyrdom that has unfortunately gone apostate over the last century (at least), we have no issue at all with women wearing physical cloth head coverings (many in my extremely large family wear head coverings), and we can sympathize with their argument in favour of it, specifically the historical argument (those that actually have an argument for it; some have no idea why they wear it, merely appeal to tradition), but we do not believe it’s a requirement in Scripture because we do not believe the text of Scripture (1 Cor 11) is actually referring to physical head coverings at all, which we will cover below, so to make it a rule for all woman is outside of Biblical authority and practise. Furthermore, majority of churches, if not all, where physical head coverings are regulated, their doctrine is unsound, the gospel is false, many of their church practices are unscriptural, and as a whole--church and denomination--are heretical and apostate. Some of the ones who do wear a physical head covering (kerchief) also wears pants, rejecting Gods command for gender distinctions — and further, are observably bossy (which is not so uncommon in those who reject God's gender distinctions by their appearance). But this is pure satire. They missed the boat on God’s command for dress altogether, and likewise the new birth which gives a new heart, changing the outside of the cup because the inside has been cleansed (cf. Matt 23). Nevertheless, we are fine with the women of other churches, even those in our own churches, wearing head coverings (as in physical cloth, kerchiefs)--and we appreciate the overall modesty that it typically comes with--since there isn’t really anything wrong in itself with physical head coverings, but they can’t cause division in our churches and try to guilt other people into wearing them, when we don’t teach that. Then it becomes a problem.

Also worth mentioning here, what Moslem women wear as a veil (called the hijab)—whom are worshippers of Satan (i.e. Allah)—is NOT a Biblical regulated head covering and doesn't somehow give them some clout for virtue and morality. Islam is Satan's greatest invention and ideology in his war against God, and its free of any Godly truth, morality and virtue. The hijab serves a few purposes for this devilish ideology and thats, (1) a means of female oppression, (2) to hide her beauty and thus keep the sexual appetites of unscrupulous men at bay when women travel outside the home, (3) to "save" a woman's life, since she is usually assumed to bear the responsibility of unlawful sexual encounters and thus subject to stoning or harassment, and (4) a symbol of religious distinction and despotic pride in Islams quest for world dominion and slaughter of the "infidels." The head covering that professing Christians wear and the Islamic veil have absolutely nothing in common, besides cloth.

The Argument for Physical Head Coverings

Today there are many churches (mostly of the Anabaptist tradition, but also other orthodox denominations) that encourage the practice of wearing physical head coverings, some even regulating it as a church ordinance.

For example, here are some Mennonite groups that hold to physical head coverings.

• Beside the Still Waters confession of faith states that “Woman are to wear a head covering (I Corinthians 11:5).”

• Charity Christian Fellowship confession reads as follows, which also forbids women from cutting their hair, an unscriptural requirement: “Sisters will not cut their hair. They cover their head with a distinctive Christian veil.” (They are adding to Scripture in demanding women cannot cut their hair. No place in Scripture teaches this. Not one verse. Just because the Bible teaches woman are to have long hair does not mean they can’t cut their hair! Matter of fact, for a woman to have long beautiful hair, she has to cut its ends. Any woman that knows anything about hair, would testify to this.)

• Conservative Anabaptist Christianity

• Mennonite sects such as the Old Order Mennonites, Sommerfelder Mennonites, Bergthaler Mennonite Church, Reinlander Mennoniten Gemeinde, Peace Mennonite, Beachy Amish Mennonite,, etc

• The Amish

Again, majority, if not all, of the above groups, are apostate churches and denominations, and the superficial head covering is simply another addition to the list of religious requirements in their quest to achieve

The support for their position is typically based upon two main arguments.

1. 1 Cor 11:2 which reads,

"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."

The plural word “ordinances” found in this passage is said to be referring to head coverings, and Paul was praising them for keeping this ordinance. It does not however appear that Paul's use of "ordinances" in this text is referring to head covering. The word "ordinances" is used in a concluding manner, where it appears to be referring to things already discussed, with a new subject being addressed in the next passage, "But I would have you know..." (v. 3), as if he is entering a new subject, which is precisely the case. 1 Cor 11:3-16 is something entirely different than what he had just been discussing. Paul had been referring to both Baptism and the Lord’s Supper in the immediate chapters, of 1 Corinthians. It is scripturally unsupportable to categorize other acts or commands (which is hierarchy and hair in this text) as ordinances when they do not fit the purpose of an ordinance. The most important reason why we know it is not referring to head coverings is because Paul would be contradicting himself in the very same contextual text. In v. 2 he praises the Corinthians for keeping the ordinances, "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances [traditions], as I delivered them to you," while at the end of this text, v. 16, he says, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom [tradition], neither the churches of God." They cannot both be referring to the same thing, for it would be a clear contradiction, and v. 16 is definitely referring to head covering, the contextual subject he had just discussed. The "ordinances" of v. 2 appears to refer to something other than head coverings, whatever the subject was he had just finished discussing (and would continue discussing after this text, after v. 16), which was the Lord's Supper (1 Cor 10 and 11:17-34). Many of these same churches, commonly found among the Mennonites by this author, and also orthodox churches, believe there are other additional ordinances such as foot washing. Historically however, the defence has been predominately that there are only two ordinances: water baptism and the Lord's Supper (both testifying of the gospel of God concerning His Son Jesus Christ – Rom 1:1-3, while neither foot washing or head coverings testify to the gospel in any way).

2. 1 Cor 11:5-6 which reads,

"But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

Understanding any passage of Scripture requires proper biblical interpretation, as Scripture instructs: 1 Cor 2:13, 14:32; 2 Tim 2:15; 2 Pet 1:2; cf. 2 Pet 1:20; 3:16-17; 2 Cor 2:17). This passage is very clearly indicating that a woman must be covered whether praying or prophesying, no argument there, and rightfully most, if not all, waking hours. If she doesn't want to be covered, let her be shorn/shaven. Chop off all her hair. Shame her in her uncovered defiance. But we something interesting in these two verses. Even here early in the chapter, we see the connection between cover and hair, which will be further established as the text continues. Their argument might stand and the argument ended, was one left with only these passages, but that is not the case. The subject doesn't end at v. 6. It ends with v. 16, and these two passages have to be interpreted in their entire context, which is vv. 3-16, all the passages must be interpreted as a whole, not vv. 5-6 privately. To pull these two out of that pile, cherry picking them, while ignoring the rest, is defined in Scripture as privately interpreting the Scriptures (2 Pet 1:20) and not rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15). It is obviously forbidden to privately interpret Scripture and interpret Scripture out of context and out of harmony with the remainder of Scripture. In fact, one is in danger of being charged as a false teacher that does this, for it is an aspect of wresting Scripture which is condemned as an "error of the wicked" (2 Pet 3:16-17), and "corrupt[ing] the word of God:" (2 Cor 2:17). Thus, those that make it a rule for all woman to wear a head covering, are outside of Biblical authority and practice. They are taking vv. 5-6 out of context, but this is only one of MANY scriptures and doctrines that are corrupted, perverted, twisted, and wrested by these same groups, concerning a lot of other doctrine in Scripture, including soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatology, Bibliology, etc, including the actual two church ordinances (Baptism and the Lord's Supper).

Historical Custom of Physical Head Coverings

The use of head coverings or veils on women during ancient, classical, and Greco-Roman eras was not “Hebrew” nor “Christian” specific, but rather universal. Due to limited historical information (both in written form and art form), there is much debate as to the actual use of the veil. It is however generally agreed that in ancient cultures veils were a symbol of submission.

Paul states in 1 Cor 11 that physical head coverings were a custom, not a command, a custom that neither he nor the churches of God were regulating.

"But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” (v. 16)

Custom means tradition. The covered head with some sort of cloth for women was a national custom among the nations and societies of the Greeks. Most of the tradition was instruction for women to wear head coverings in church and family worship, but 1 Cor 11 does not explicitly state that the covering is specifically and only for worship, but for praying and prophesying. Paul refers to head covering as a “custom,” which is not the same thing as a scripturally regulated act or practice of worship.

Here are various professing Christians that historically labelled head coverings as a custom (quoting them does not necessarily mean we agree with them, either on this doctrine or any other doctrine).

Westminster Confession of Faith (1646). It appears most of the Reformed, Scottish covenanters and the Westminster authors in the reformation and puritan era did not believe that Paul’s injunction for women to cover their heads in worship was binding, and that Paul’s inference was relative to his culture, which used this custom while not regulated by churches. Those behind the Westminster Confession separated the customary symbolism for women in 1 Cor 11:2-16 from unalterable moral and Biblical principles—submission, authority, designed gender distinction, and proper dress—always to be observed in worship. Head coverings are not listed in their regulations for worship, we find only silence, and then we have specific statements indicating head covenants as cultural or customary. Here are some of those.

George Gillespie (1613-1648) discusses three kinds of signs—natural, customary, and voluntary—and places head coverings among the customary signs:

“Customable signs; and so the uncovering of the head, which of old was a sign of preeminence, has, through custom, become a sign of subjection.” (A Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies, Naphtali Press, pp. 247-248)

Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661), one of the Westminster authors writes:

“The Jews to this day, as of old, used not uncovering the head as a sign of honor:  But by the contrary, covering was a sign of honor. If therefore the Jews, being made a visible Church, shall receive the Lord’s Supper, and pray and prophesy with covered heads, men would judge it no dishonoring of their head, or not of disrespect of the Ordinances of God. Though Paul having regard to a national custom, did so esteem it.” (The Divine Right of Church Government and Excommunication, Still Waters Revival Books, pp. 89-90)

Daniel Cawdrey (1588-1664) and Herbert Palmer (1601-1647), both Westminster authors, write:

“First, variable, or temporary, which were such injunctions as were prescribed, either for some special ends, as that law for abstaining from blood, and things strangled, Acts 15:1 for avoiding offense to the Jews, or to some special nations, or persons, as agreeable to the customs of those places and times, as that of women being vailed in the Congregations, and some other the like.  Second, invariable and perpetual" (The Christian Sabbath Vindicated, 1652, Part II, p. 463)

Scottish Covenanter, James Durham (1622-1658) taught headcovering not as a universal principle of regulated worship, but a customable sign:

"For no offense whatsoever should men forbear a necessary duty, or commit anything which is materially sinful. . . .  Yet in other things . . . , if the matter is of light concernment in itself, as how men’s gestures are in their walking (suppose in walking softly, or quickly, with cloak or without) men ought to do, or abstain, as may prevent the construction of pride, lightness, etc., or give occasion to others in any of these.  Of such sort was women’s praying with their heads uncovered amongst the Corinthians, it being taken then for an evil sign." (The Dying Man’s Testament of the Church of Scotland, 1680)

Geneva Bible (published in 1599) commentary notes (the very first Bible to ever have notes written in it), which were written by Beza, read concerning 1 Cor 11:4:

"[Paul] gathers that if men do either pray or preach in public assemblies having their heads covered (which was then a sign of subjection), they robbed themselves of their dignity, against God’s ordinance. It appears that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection."

These examples, among many, show that churches historically treated physical head coverings as a custom, not as a Biblical command.

Bible Doctrine on Head Coverings

1 Cor 11:3-16 is the text of Scripture that deals with this subject. Every Christian should admit that Paul gives a lot of verses to the subject of dress, and especially to head-coverings as an element of dress, 14 in total in 1 Cor 16. One should know their position on head coverings.

The biggest issue out of this text is discerning the nature of the woman’s covering. It is obvious that God requires that the woman have a token of submission on her head through a covering, but the question is whether that is referring to a cloth kerchief or to hair that is of sufficient length.

We believe the text teaches that a head covering is sufficient with hair, as long as it of proper length, which is Paul's argument here, tied to the Biblical hierarchy ordained by God. We believe that interpreting these passages as only a physical covering is interpreting out of context, a form of private interpretation and wresting Scripture. Here is why but first the entire text.

1 Cor 11:2-16 reads,

[2] Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

[4] Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

[5] But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

[6] For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

[7] For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

[8] For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

[9] Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

[10] For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

[11] Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

[12] For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. [13] Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

[14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

[15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

[16] But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”

We have included v. 2 here but do not believe it is related to the rest of this text. The “ordinances” mentioned in v. 2 is not the prologue to what he is about to say about hierarchy and hair. This entire text is about these two subjects: hierarchy and hair, but “ordinances” refers to what he had just been discussing, and will continue discussing as this chapter continues and into the further chapters, the Lord's Supper and Baptism. It is scripturally unsupportable to categorize other acts or commands (such as hierarchy and hair in this text) as ordinances when they do not fit the purpose of an ordinance. As aforementioned, if he was referring to what he is about to say, he would be contradicting himself in v. 16. At the basic meaning of "ordinance" is a precept or law, and thus a reference to all of the authoritative teachings of the apostles in the NT Scriptures -- but again, even with this definition which could very well be what he is referring to, v. 2 would still be contradicting v. 16.

The first subject of this text (1 Cor 11:3-16) is hierarchy.

Paul’s instruction in 1 Cor 11 should be seen in the context of the situation that existed at Corinth. The city was wicked and the Christians were tempted to conform to the pattern of the culture around them. In Corinthian society women were taught to dress seductively and to invite the sensual attention of men, objects of lust. Even the religious worship in the temples was little more than legalized prostitution. Homosexuality was also common and the God-created distinction between the male and the female was broken down. Men were acting like women (“effeminate,” 1 Cor. 6:9) and women were acting like men. The situation that existed in Corinth, exists today everywhere in the world. The attempt to break down the God-ordained distinction between male and female is a global problem, so it is one that is faced by Christians in practically every part of the world. The lessons of 1 Cor 11:1-16 are needed by the churches today as never before.

Paul provides instruction on God’s divine order of creation and the woman’s role of submission and the distinction between male and female (vv. 3, 7-9). The hierarchy in this world is Woman → Man → Christ → God. There is a hierarchy in God’s order. The head is the governing organ, to which all else is subordinate. This hierarchy is the basis for Paul’s instructions concerning the proper manner of worship.

God created man first and the woman was created afterwards from the man, as his helpmeet, and then concerning after the fall, "[her] desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Gen 3:16). We see God's injunction of woman submitting to man right from the beginning, and the way the text reads, God designed this desire in the woman. In God’s order, man has a position of authority over the woman, which is true not only in the marriage relationship, but in relationships everywhere. Obviously there have been exceptions, but as a general rule men assume the role of leadership in society and women assume the role of submission and this is reflected in Scripture even by their dress and hair styles. This does not mean woman are of any lesser value or honour. There is honour for both man and woman in their respective and diverse roles, and nowhere should that be more evident than in Christianity and in the local church.

Hair length is brought into 1 Cor 11 because it is symbolic of one’s standing in this world under God. The imagery of the head represents the threefold hierarchy of woman to man, man to Christ, and Christ to God. The man is to have short hair because he is the image and glory of God and his head is Christ (1 Cor 11:3-4, 7). The woman is to have long hair as a sign of her submission to the man under Christ (1 Cor 11:3-5). So when she goes uncovered, that is, without long hair, she dishonours her head, namely, the man. When she appears in the dress of her superior (i.e., short hair, or similarly, dressed in the garments of a man), she throws off the token of her subjection. God would see this as one desirous of changing sexes, as we have exposed in the report Immodesty and Transgenderism, a manifest affection of that superiority which God had conferred on the other sex. Mankind must be content with the manner in which God has wisely designed our affairs. The order in which divine wisdom has placed persons and things is best and fittest, and any motive or endeavour to destroy this order is to only introduce confusion and destruction, as readily noted in our present culture. The woman should keep to the rank God has chosen for her, and not dishonour her head; for this, in the result, is to dishonour God. Since God has made her our of the man, and for the man, and made for the glory of man, she should do nothing, especially in public, that makes it appear she wishes the hierarchy order inverted. God has given woman beautiful hair and His desire is for to wear it long and thus act as a natural "covering" and "a glory to her" (v. 15), and "power on her head because of the angels" (v. 10), which reminds us of Samson the Nazarite who had power on his head whenever his hair was long (Jud 13:5), though this be a bit different, the power coming from the angels.

Corinth in the 1st century was quite wicked and those that were genuinely converted in the church at Corinth came out of great sin (1 Cor 6:9-11). God commands the submission of women to men, instructions found through Scripture, though it will continue to be a struggle for some women, due in part to the sin curse upon them (Gen 3:16), and in Corinth the problem appears to be great. Because of the ungodly culture they had been reared in, the women at Corinth appeared to have an issue with submission to male leadership, noted not only in these instructions that Paul endeavoured to give, but also in various other places throughout the two epistles (e.g., 1 Cor 14:33-35). Length of hair is pinpointed by Paul, for both men and women, instructing women to keep long hair which is a symbol of submission to her head, which is man.

The second subject of this text (1 Cor 11:3-16) is coverings and hair, which ties into the first.

As aforementioned, we really have no issue with woman wearing artificial head coverings, if that is what a husband and/or church prefers, as long as its not something practiced to gain merit for salvation, and as long as its not forced upon others, as long as they don't cause division in the church and try to guilt people into wearing them, when its not being taught there, and as long as its not at the expense of long hair. Transgression of any of these, then it becomes a problem. Many that do practice the custom argue that God requires it, commands it, but we do not believe this to be true at all. According to 1 Cor. 11:15-16, it is not a requirement from Scripture, so to make it a rule for all woman is outside of Biblical authority and practise.

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." (v. 15)

Verses 14 and 15 are the answers to the rhetorical question of v. 13,

"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"  

If she has "long hair," (v. 15) then she is not "uncovered" (v. 13), and that distinguishes her from the man, who, if he has long hair, has a cover and its a shame unto him (v. 14).

Though passages such as v. 6 ("For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered") appear to indicate that a veil or cloth of some sort is the physical covering required, v. 15 plainly states that hair, if it be long as decreed, is given the woman for a covering and for her glory: "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." Verse 6 and 15 tie together. Again,

 "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered . . . But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." (vv. 6, 15)

The phrasing of v. 6 does not necessarily mean that the covering must be something other than her hair, though it could be due to the fact that v. 4, where the covering that is forbidden for men, is obviously a physical covering. It is not however necessary to interpret v. 6 as speaking of a separate covering or veil, but even to do so, does not change the truth of v. 15, where God's Word says long hair is a covering for a woman, just like long hair is a covering for a man but forbidden (v. 14). Verse 6 is teaching us that a woman who refuses to wear her hair long for a proper covering and token of authority, if she wants to cut it like a man’s, let her go ahead but then she must shave it all off. Long hair or none. In saying this, the apostle is emphasizing the seriousness of this matter. Obviously it is not proper for a woman’s head to be shaved, and thankfully this is extremely rare, for it is contrary to the woman’s natural desire, and brings shame to her. This is a proven fact. When World War II ended and Germany was defeated, some of the women in France that had cohabited with the German soldiers were shaved as a sign of disgrace.

The “covering” of v. 15 in reference to her hair is translated from the Greek "peribolaion" (found once more in scripture, Heb 1:12 "vesture") is defined by Strongs as something thrown around one, that is, a mantle, veil, covering, vesture, and has virtually the same meaning as the “covering” mentioned in vv. 5-7, though it be a different Greek word,"katakalupto" (found 3x in Bible, twice in v. 6 and once v. 7) and its negative participle, twice, vv. 5 and 13 ("uncovered"), which means to cover wholly, that is, veil, cover, hide. Thus, the Bible says the woman’s hair is given her for a mantle or vesture or veil or covering over her head. This is how God describes the womans long hair. Clearly the "covering" of v. 15 is the "long hair" of v. 15, which is stated specifically so: "her hair is given her for a covering." This is the passage whereby the "covering" of vv. 5-7 and 13 is to be interpreted, where we have a clear definition of what "covering" is.

The fact that there are two different Greek words used for the woman’s covering does not necessarily mean two different things are in view. It does not mean that a different "covering" is referred to in vv. 4-7 than in v. 15, especially considering that we have an actual defintion of covering in v. 15. We do not believe that two Greek words being used is significant. The words mean the exact same thing: a veil, a covering, and that is why the KJB translators translated both words by the same English word, “covering.” The Greek NT frequently uses different Greek words as synonyms, just as we do in the English language, and some words have dozens of synonyms.

The point Paul is making is that the woman’s hair is her "covering." Her long hair completely signifies that she is a woman, which testifies her proper place in creation. The commands of God stipulate her roles and responsibilities required of her by her Creator. The woman was created as man’s helpmeet (Gen 2:18-25). Therefore, following the purpose woman was created, she was to help (not usurp) the man in carrying out his ministries. Usurping the man’s authority is part of the curse upon the woman, and thus a constant temptation and battle – Gen 3:16). Neglecting God-given roles and responsibilities causes disorder and confusion, which was the case in the church at Corinth (1 Cor 11:17-22).

The actual real requirement and theme of these passages of Scripture is not that women must have a physical head covering but rather that woman have long hair, covered, and men have short hair, uncovered. This is Pauls argument, that points to the godly hierarchy presented in the text, the head hierarchy. "[N]ature itself teach[es]" (1 Cor 11:14) us these matters because the "work of the law is written in [our] hearts," so they "do by nature the things contained in the law." (Rom 2:14-15). Short hair on men, thus an uncovered head ("a man indeed ought not to cover his head") because "he is the image and glory of God" while long hair on woman, thus a covered head ("But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.") We see even nature teaches us these things concerning length of hair, whilst Paul gives the text to explain God's reason behind it. In other words, no man or Scripture would have to tell us that this is how its to be; we naturally know that boys have short hair and girls have long hair, an element of the law written into the heart of all men, as many other moral elements of the law are:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)" (Rom 2:14-15)

What about the covering mentioned in v. 4 referring to man?

"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head."

This passage plainly deals with the fact that men should not be covering their head while "praying or prophesying," which is in direct contrast to the instructions towards women, and this is because the position of authority of the man over the woman, and "that the head of every man is Christ" (v. 3). This covering is referring to something more than the short hair of a man. Long hair on a man would act as a covering (vv. 4, 14), as would a hat, or other physical item, and this dishomours the Lord Jesus Christ, man's head.

A man’s hair is short when it’s not hanging down over the head and when it is clearly not long and feminine. It's not difficult. The distinction between the male and the female should be evident from the way they dress and the way they wear their hair. The Bible gives a fair amount of space for this subject because it is important. Short hair on a man is what we typically see today and all know what is acceptable in length. The Lord exhorts us to approve things that are excellent, not things which are mediocre and borderline and questionable (Phil 1:10). The men of Paul’s day typically wore their hair short. This is obvious from the statuary and artwork that has survived. Every Museum that I have toured in throughout Europe, all of the major and some of the lesser known Museums, I have viewed countless statues of males from the era of the Roman Empire, and invariably they all have short hair. The emperors set the standard and they had very short hair. The only men in Israel that had long hair were rebels (e.g., Absalom, 2 Sam 14:26) and those that took the vow of the Nazarite (Num 6:5; Jud 16:7; 1 Sam 1:11).

The reason a man should keep his head uncovered is because he is the glory of God, and the reason the woman should keep her head covered is because she is the glory of man (vv. 6-7). A properly adorned head glorifies its authority. Paul further emphasized this point by restating the order of creation (vv. 8-9).

The key to "covering" is the long length of hair on a woman. Man is to have short hair and woman is to have long hair. Anything outside of that is a shame to the respected sex. That is Paul’s argument in v. 6. If a woman doesn’t want to have long hair as her covering and thus cuts her hair short, then let her be shorn and shaven to shame her. Further, God didn’t command short hair for men and long hair for women and then leave us to guess what He meant by the length, in a subjective manner. There is no way that would’ve happened, and no such example exists anywhere in scripture concerning instructions of length. It would be subjective, while Gods truth is objective, especially something this important where even nature itself teaches what is right and what is a shame. It is impossible for every single person to apply their our own standards to this; for everyone would have a different interpretation. Sadly, many woman today in their rebellion against the authority and head that God has put in their lives (i.e., husbands), will argue against the required length of hair that God expects. They might say that God gives no measurement. That is a lie. God does indeed give measurements: men short, woman long. These are measurements, but they could be misjudged in a subjective manner. That is not God's will. Every passage of Scripture has one interpretation, not many. And the Holy Spirit teaches one truth (I Jn. 2:20-21, 27), not multiple and conflicting "truths." Since God is not the author of confusion, He provided us detailed measurements. What then is the length of "long hair" for a woman? Lo and behold, unsurprising to this author, the very word “long hair” in the Greek contains the length of the hair, which we might suspect seeing the non-italicized word "long" before "hair."

"Kamao" is the Greek word and found only in two passages in the NT: 1 Cor. 11:14 and 15, the underlying word for "long hair" in both these verses, both non-italicized. The KJB translators knew what they were doing when they translated this inspired word of God into "long hair," and not just "hair," the difference being substantial. And "long hair" has a clear meaning, not leaving man to subjective blind groping in the dark and establishing impetuous rules and dictates. The definition behind "kamao," is "to wear tresses of hair - long hair." (Strong's). Most other lexicons define it similar fashion. The key then is to understand what "tresses of hair" means, in order to understand what “long hair” really refers to, objectively. Here is what some dictionaries define it as: "a long lock of a woman's hair." Merriam Webster says, "a long lock of hair; especially: the long unbound hair of a woman —usually used in plural." It's always defined and described as hair that is long and hangs down the back, from the middle downwards. This is what "long hair" is defined as. In Jn 11:12 we read of Mary wiping Jesus' feet with her hair, which would be impossible with short shoulder-length hair, even hair anywhere above the middle of the back. This length of hair was just normal in the years prior to 20th century, with exceptions obviously in medical conditions that hinders hair growth. If you search this word ("kamao," or "tresses of hair") on the internet and hit images, you will see many pictures such as this come up, illustrating "kamao," and "tresses of hair":

"Komao" does not mean uncut. Neither these verses nor anywhere else in the Bible does it say that the woman can never cut her hair. This is a man-made fable that is read into these verses, because they say "long hair." Well long hair does not mean uncut hair, which is adding to Scripture in making the decree that a woman cannot cut her hair. No place in Scripture teaches this. Not one verse. Just because the Bible teaches woman are to have long hair does not mean they can’t cut their hair! Matter of fact, for a woman to have long beautiful hair, she has to cut its ends. Any woman that knows anything about hair, would testify to this fact.

We believe the woman’s long hair (at least middle of the back, minimum) is a proper covering in all instances, but if someone is convinced that an extra covering is necessary, then let them wear an extra covering but it must be a true head covering. A small piece of lace or cloth sitting on the top of the hair, like a head band, is not a covering, as some Mennonites wear. A bonnet like those worn by the Salvation Army is not a covering. If the covering is something other than the woman’s long hair, then it must be something that actually covers her entire head (not face). It should be shawl-like and should be draped over the hair, covering the entire hair. Genuine modesty and feminine shamefacedness is rare in Western society today, even in Bible-believing churches that preach separation from the world, so I can see why the subject of hair length is such an issue amongst women, and even men. It ought to be a disgrace for a woman to have short hair, opposing the authority of man that God has placed in her life, in the same fashion when she wears mans garments (De 22:5), and sadly this is something that is almost never reproved by pastors and preachers and laity alike.

 A material head covering was never a spiritual requirement from the beginning. Had it been, God would have put a head covering on Eve after her and Adam sinned, to show evidence of her submitted position. Furthermore, Ezk 16:1-14 describes a metaphor to picture His compassion upon Israel and His salvation of her (v. 8ff.), covering her nakedness with clothing and beautifying her with many jewels including “a jewel on thy forehead, and earrings in thine ears, and a beautiful crown upon thine head,” (v. 12), all of which represented royalty and God’s love for His bride, though sadly Israel would not repent and be converted, continuing rather to play the harlot and the whore in her rebellion (vv. 15-16ff.). Yet in all these details of a saved Israel adorned by her God, there is never a veil or other head covering of any sort given her to testify His desire that Israel submit to Him.

If Paul is talking about a covering separate from the woman’s hair, a covering made of cloth or some material, it is rather strange that the Bible does not actually refer to it here in 1 Cor 11, where it should be, or anywhere else in Scripture. It is not found in even one place of Scripture, nor are we given any information about its proper size, when and how to wear it, at what age it should be worn, and other such important facts.

Outside of the supposition found in 1 Cor 11 (that women are to wear physical head coverings made of cloth), there are no actual direct commands in scripture regarding head coverings on women. (There is proof, however, that women wore physical head coverings, but there are no commands demanding it.) The only law of God that deals remotely with head coverings on women is clothing in general, which forbids the exchange of gender specific clothing (De 22:5). In 1 Tim 2:9-10, women are instructed to dress modestly: “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.” Notice that the hair is addressed as a point of concern, yet no mention of any type of physical head covering. Notice that the Lord did not tell them to cover their heads as a means of “adorning.” This instruction does not prohibit women from braiding their hair, wearing gold or pearls, or putting on costly apparel, but rather from seeking to draw attention to themselves with their clothing and hair. Instead, they are to adorn themselves with the virtue of “shamefacedness” (the fear of shame), and “sobriety” (moral virtues). Another reference for women is found in 1 Pet 3:5-6, “Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” Many believe this verse forbids women from wearing jewelry or adorning their hair: If one cannot wear jewelry or adorn their hair, then why can they wear apparel? For if the instruction does not allow jewelry or adorned hair, then it also forbids wearing apparel altogether ("let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel"), which is scripturally unsupportable. The instruction here for women is that their behaviour should adorn their Christian character. Peter cautions them about using clothing and physical adorning methods to draw attention to themselves. There is also no instruction to cover the head with some kind of material covering to promote a “chaste conversation coupled with fear” (v. 3). If women’s head coverings were a public spiritual testimony of submission to men, then this would have been a good time to exhort such a command. Also, why rebuke how the hair was adorned if it was to be covered? This gives clear credence that women were not being required to wear physical head coverings, for they would have been rebuked and corrected in these letters for not doing so.

What about 1 Cor 11:10,

“For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”

Over the course of a few centuries, the physical head covering began to progressively be viewed as almost a mystical enigma among Anabaptists. They famously misinterpreted and misused the verse to imply many things about the head coverings besides what 1 Cor 11 explicitly indicates. For instance, one, the head covering on a woman offers her physical protection from sexual molestation, as if cloth somehow grows some form of power; or as they might profess contrariwise, the physical covering being present brings the power and protection of the angels to that woman. Though a perpetrator could develop a guilty conscience, in many cases the magical kerchief provided no form of supernatural protection. The Mennonite girl who was abducted, assaulted and murdered in New Mexico in 2020 had a head covering, and God allowed unspeakable things to happen to her. How about the unmentionable violation of the many Mennonite women in a Bolivia colony by their own men, after inhaling a gaseous sedative drug while they slept? Anecdotal and scriptural evidence of violation and martyrdom ought to silence the false teaching that a cloth covering wards off evil and brings protection. This is to say nothing of the incest that has happened within Mennonite families. Other imagined arguments for its use include, two, it encourages virtuous behaviour, and three, it was thought to be a reminder to women of who they are morally and ethically. One group, the Evangelical Mennonite Conference (EMC)—back in the day when they were actually conservative and more inline with Scripture—called for women to wear physical head coverings as a sign of humility. Where in 1 Cor 11 or anywhere else in God’s Word, is this given as support for physical head coverings? Nowhere. This is an example of leavens' effects, the leaven of error (Gal 5:9). What started off as a misinterpretation and misuse of 1 Cor 11:3-16—a very severe danger that we continuously warn of here at 20/20 (and more often than not, a major marker of a false teacher)—progressively turned the head covering into something more than what Scripture indicates, eventually even progressing to an element of a woman’s spiritual salvation.

This passage, v. 10, speaks to the ministering angels being able to differentiate between a man and a woman by her covering in her worship of God, i.e., volume of hair or a physical head cover, and thus the proper establishment of propriety, due subordination, and order is maintained by professing Christians in their worship of God, an encouragement to the ministering angels who are adherents to these matters and are even learning from the saints (cf. 1 Cor. 4:9; Eph. 3:10; 1 Tim. 5:21; Heb. 1:14; 1 Pet. 1:12). It could even be a temptation for rebellion to angels when they do not witness the proper establishment of propriety, due subordination, and order maintained by professing Christians in their worship, evident by their absence of long hair as a head covering, or men sporting long hair, both dishonouring their head. We know that many angels, 1/3, followed Satan in his rebellion against God (Matt 25:41; Rev 12:7-9). It could well be a temptation to rebellion for an angel to observe a women who refuses to humble herself and assume the earthly position God has given her under male headship, refusing to wear the mark of such submission on their head, meaning long hair.

It's worth mentioning, the Lord Jesus Christ did NOT have long hair. This is erroneous and a lie and according to 1 Cor 11:14, would be a shame, and so He certainly did not have long hair. He was not a Nazarite (He was called a Nazarene because He grew up in Nazareth) and He would not have worn long hair, since it is a “shame.” (Some have confused “Nazarene” for “Nazarite” in reference to Jesus, but Christ is never called a Nazarite. He is called a Nazarene or “Jesus of Nazareth” because His childhood home was in the town of Nazareth. See Matt 2:23; 26:71; Mk 14:67; Ac 2:22; 3:6; 10:38; 22:8.) We cover this subject in further detail here: Are Images of Jesus Christ Forbidden by Scripture and Did Jesus Have Long Hair?

Conclusion

Thus in answer to our title, "Does the Bible Require Women to Wear a Head Covering?" the answer is a resounding yes, but not what most people would think, who might assume we mean an actual head covering consisting of a piece of physical cloth. That is not what we mean however. God does require the woman to wear a head covering indeed, and that covering is her long hair. Not short hair around the shoulders or even just below, but actual “long hair” as the passage tells us, and the underlying word that God inspired, "Komao," clearly verifies, hair that reaches at least the middle of her back. That is an appropriate "covering" for her head, and honours her head, her husband, and consequently the Lord. The woman’s hair, as long as it’s long (which is around the middle of the back, according to the underlying Greek word, “komao,” which literally means tresses of hair, which are long locks and require at least middle-of-the-back hair, if not longer), is given her for a covering. That is what vv. 13-15 plainly says:

“Judge in yourselves: is it comely [becoming, or proper] that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair (Komao), it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair (komao), it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”

1 Cor 11 is speaking about covering something rather than displaying something, and we know that dead religion loves the glamour of exhibition (cf. Matt 23; all dead religions of the world). The most common mistake about this passage is the belief that it is referring to a piece of cloth (noun) to cover the head of the woman, when in fact it is only speaking of covering (verb) the head or not covering the head. At no point is a material cloth even brought into the argument. Scripture never mentions that a cloth (noun) covering is required for the head. Size (how much of the head is required to be covered), colour, material, shape, age requirement, established after salvation(?), are never mentioned here in 1 Cor 11, or anywhere else in Scripture. But what is mentioned, clearly and perspicuously plainly is the natural covering – the hair. The action of covering (women) or not covering (men) symbolizes obedience to God's Word, and submission to their respected head. The fact it is an action (verb) rather than a thing (noun), further establishes that it's the natural hair being addressed here, and not a piece of cloth or other material.

Physical cloth coverings of the head (i.e., kerchief, shawl) are not a requirement in Scripture as 1 Cor 11:15-16 makes absolutely crystal clear, so to make it a rule for women is outside of Biblical authority and practise, more in line with "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" and thus "in vain do they worship me" Jesus says (Mk 7:7), merely robotic ritualism in many cases, and here is why:

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." (Rom 10:3-4).

Those that do such things are taking v. 5 out of context. The entire context reads vv. 3 to 16 and all the passages must be interpreted as a whole, not v. 5 privately, which then falls under the condemnation of 2 Pet. 1:20, privately interrupting Scripture, which is dishonouring to God and nigh to wresting the Scriptures, which is an "error of the wicked" (2 Pet 3:16-17). Furthermore, for many that require a physical head covering it has turned into a superficial ritual with extraBiblical man-made rules that are held as highly as Biblical commands from Scripture, which is egregious and sinful in a number of different areas, and not unlike the unregenerate self-righteous (Rom 10:1-5) Pharisees that the Lord Jesus sharply reproved and condemned in Mk 7 and Matt 23. And even for others, the practice is tied into the doctrine of salvation, which makes it a damnable heresy (2 Pet 2:1).

The “covering” in 1 Cor 11:15 is referring to the same “covering” mentioned in vv. 4-7, and it's the answer to the rhetorical question in vv. 13-14. If she has "long hair," (v. 15) then she is not "uncovered" (v. 13). There is nothing wrong with having physical head coverings, but those who "be contentious, we have no such custom," Paul wrote, "neither the churches of God." (v. 16). Why "no such custom" in "the churches of God"? Because "her [long] hair is given her for a covering.” (v. 15). Women that want to have short hair on the other hand need to be shaved and shorn (vv. 5-6), to be shamed.

During prayer or prophesying, worship, a man’s covered head (long hair, or a material cover) dishonours his head, which is Christ (vv. 3-4). A woman who prays or prophesies, worships, with her head uncovered (short hair) dishonours her head, which is the man (vv. 3, 5, 15). Such dishonour is shameful (vv. 5-6).

If someone thinks we are wrong on the matter, we are happy to read their Biblical argument for it, though majority of arguments for this tradition are similar in nature.