The topic of “head coverings” might not seem like an exciting topic, but Paul’s teachings on head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is one of the most fiercely debated passages in the entire Bible.
Paul wrote 1 Corinthians around AD 55 to the believers in Corinth—a prosperous port city that was so well-known for sexual immorality that living a promiscuous lifestyle became known as “corinthianizing.” It is in this context of primarily Gentile believers that Paul brings up the subject of head coverings.
What Do Head Coverings Symbolize in Scripture?
Head coverings had cultural and religious meanings in the ancient world. Roman priests commonly wore head coverings during pagan religious ceremonies. According to the first-century philosopher Plutarch, this was meant to convey humility.
Head coverings were also worn outside of worship by both men and women. Some scholars, such as Craig Keener, believe head coverings were worn by women as an expression of modesty that indicated they were married. Other scholars, such as Thomas Schreiner, believe that head coverings were a symbol of a woman’s acceptance of male authority or “headship.” Understanding the cultural meaning of the head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 has significant implications on the role of women in the church and the complementarian/egalitarian debate.
How Should Christians Interpret Paul’s Teaching on Head Coverings?
In the early Christian church, most women wore head coverings in worship and most men did not wear head coverings. However, it seems this cultural practice was not being universally followed in Corinth, and Paul took issue with this. Why, exactly, Paul took issue with this is hotly debated by complementarians and egalitarians.
Before exploring different interpretations of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, let’s read it for ourselves:
"I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. 3 But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God."
(1 Corinthians 11:2-16, NIV)
Consider reading the passage in multiple translations, too, as different translations lean slightly towards different interpretations.
The Complementarian View
Complementarians view men and women as each having distinct but complementary roles, with men being called to lead with love and women being called to respect and support men (Ephesians 5:21-33). Though complementarians believe men have a unique responsibility to lead, they emphasize that men and women have equal value and are equally made in God’s image (Genesis 1:27).
While there are different nuances to the complementarian interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, the core interpretation remains the same: women are to wear head coverings as a symbol of respect for male leadership, and men are to leave their heads uncovered as a symbol of their leadership role.
Paul’s argument begins by describing Christ as the head (kephalē) of every man, man as the head of woman, and God (the Father) as the head of Christ. Paul uses this same metaphorical “headship” language in Ephesians 5:22-33, where he elaborates on what leadership by husbands and support from wives should look like. Paul’s analogy compares man’s relationship with woman to Christ’s relationship with the church, emphasizing a loving, self-sacrificial kind of leadership.
Complementarians note how in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul uses the Father/Son as an example of “headship” authority, where Jesus willingly submitted himself to his Heavenly Father even though Jesus is equally God. In the same way, complementarians argue that men and women are given different roles (functions), but are essentially equal in value, just as the Son is equal with the Father.
Complementarians believe that Paul is teaching women to wear head coverings in church, particularly when they publicly pray and prophesy, to make it clear that their participation is done in a manner respectful of male headship. Paul argues for head coverings by referencing both nature and the created order established in Genesis.
Paul’s argument from nature focuses on hair length. Though this aspect of Paul’s argument is debated, many scholars reference historical sources describing how long hair in men and short hair in women implied homosexual orientation. At any rate, Paul’s argument from nature seems to relate to maintaining clear gender distinctions.
Paul’s argument from Genesis focuses on the order of creation. Dr. Thomas Schriner puts it this way: “If woman was created for man’s sake, i.e., to help him in the tasks God gave him, then it follows that woman should honor man. The thrust of 11:7b-9 is that women should wear a head covering because she is man’s glory, i.e., she was created to honor him” (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, p. 133).
Complementarians argue that men not wearing head coverings is in part to distinguish men and women (and their different roles) from one another. However, many complementarians also argue that Paul’s command may have been to promote equality between men of different social stations, since high status men often covered their heads during pagan worship.
In verses 11-12, Paul balances out his teaching of male headship with a reminder that both man and women are dependent on each other. Yes, man was created first, but also, man is born from women—neither would exist without the other, and ultimately, all of us come from God. This is the “complementary” emphasis of the complementarian position.
The complementarian interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 has been the standard interpretation throughout church history. Even the early church fathers who spoke Ancient Greek (the language Paul wrote in) agreed with this interpretation. This is a very strong point in the complementarian position’s favor. However, it’s not enough to convince egalitarian scholars.
Complementarians generally emphasize the equal value of men and women and endorse a servant leadership model (rather than one of self-centered patriarchal rulership). Still, the question remains: how can complementarians avoid abuses in a power structure that gives greater authority to one gender? The chief counter-argument of egalitarians is that an equal power balance creates healthier relationships between men and women. Egalitarians argue that the traditional interpretation is more of a reflection on man’s desire to maintain power than it is on the teachings of the Bible itself. There is no shortage of examples of abusive male authority throughout history to add to the egalitarian case.
Egalitarians also argue that the word kephalē (head), can be interpreted to mean “source” rather than “authority” (e.g., more like the “head” of a river than the “head” of a council). It is an ongoing debate in scholarship whether “source,” “authority,” or a mixture of the two concepts is a better translation in this passage.
The Egalitarian Position
Egalitarians argue that all of Scripture’s passages on the relationship between men and women should be filtered through the lens of Galatians 3:28. “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (NIV). When Christians assign positions of authority by gender rather than by giftings, the body of Christ does not work together in perfect unity (Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-31). Equality, rather than hierarchy, should be the defining factor of male-female relationships
Egalitarians offer multiple interpretations of 1 Corinthians 11. Three of the most significant are detailed below.
1. The Hairstyle View
Some egalitarian scholars (such as Philip Payne), believe that 1 Corinthians 11 is not about cloth head coverings at all, but about hairstyles, hair length, and sexual morality.
Payne argues that when Paul says women should have their heads “covered,” Paul is saying women should have their hair done up (rather than flowing loose). He also argues that when men have their heads “covered,” that means they have grown out their hair and are wearing their hair in a feminine hairstyle. Paul’s concern for women is that culturally, loose-flowing hair would indicate participation in sexual debauchery (in particular, as practiced in the cult of Dionysius, which had a presence in Corinth). Paul’s concern for men is that long hair worn in a feminine style would be an intentional blurring of gender lines (likely in the pursuit of homosexual lusts).
Some strengths of this argument are its grounding in the cultural context of Corinth and its use of a topic clearly present in the text (hair length) as an explanation for the “coverings” issue. However, the Hairstyle View does have some weaknesses.
One key counter-argument is that Greek-speaking early church fathers almost unanimously agree that cloth head coverings are the subject of this passage.
Another counter-argument is that Paul does not make any explicit reference to sexual immorality in the passage. Payne explains that “Paul probably wanted to avoid speaking directly of such disgraceful things.” However, earlier in this same letter, Paul explicitly refers to “men who have sex with men” (1 Corinthians 6:9). Paul is not typically the sort of writer to beat around the bush for the sake of tact.
Finally, Payne’s interpretations sometimes require the same word in the same context to have different meanings. For instance, Payne requires “uncovered” to refer to a woman having her long hair hanging loose, but for men, “uncovered” must refer to short hair. Payne also claims that when 1 Corinthians 11:7 says “woman is the glory of man,” it “affirms her as man’s proper sexual partner.” However, when the same verse says man is “the image and glory of God,” it means men should “accept themselves as God made them and bring glory to God, not disgrace.” These different proposed meanings for “uncovered” and “glory” come across as inconsistent.
This is a very brief overview of a complex view. You can read Payne’s overview of his full interpretation here.
2. The Quotation/Refutation View
Some egalitarians suggest that Paul is describing someone else’s beliefs rather than his own in 1 Corinthians 11. This is not without precedent. Paul often quotes the Corinthians in order to refute what they are saying. Some simple and clear examples are 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Corinthians 6:12-13, and 1 Corinthians 10:23.
When trying to identify quotations and refutations in the original Greek, scholars have a disadvantage: the original Greek doesn’t have punctuation. Sometimes, Paul clearly identifies the person he is quoting (such as in 1 Corinthians 1:12). Other times, though, this only implied by the context.
It’s easy to imagine that Paul might do a similar quotation/refutation in 1 Corinthians 11 and that, due to the lack of punctuation in the Greek, many readers missed his intent. These are strong points in the Quotation/Refutation View’s favor.
However, in 1 Corinthians 10:13 (and elsewhere in 1 Corinthians), Paul’s quotations are short, pithy statements quickly followed by the refutation. They are not an extended argument such as 1 Corinthians 11 presents. Critics also note that, unlike other passages where Paul uses quotation/refutation, it’s hard to argue grammatically for clear points of differentiation between the quotations and the refutations. Even proponents of the Quotation/Refutation View itself often disagree on where the dividing lines are between Paul’s quotations and refutations.
Consider another difficulty. Verse three strongly indicates Paul is teaching the Corinthians, not echoing their position:
“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:3, NASB, emphasis added).
The “I” in this verse is singular, and the “you” (hymas) is plural in the Greek, strongly indicating that verse 3 is something Paul is teaching the Corinthians, not a Corinthian statement he is refuting.
3. The Egalitarian Cloth Head Coverings View
Some Egalitarians agree with complementarians that Corinthians 11:2-16 is about cloth head coverings. However, they argue against the idea that cloth head coverings are meant to symbolize submission. Dr. Craig Keener is one well-known proponent of this view. Here, Keener summarizes his interpretation:
Although women and men alike covered their heads for various reasons, married women specifically covered their heads to prevent men other than their husbands from lusting after their hair. A married woman who went out with her head uncovered was considered promiscuous, and was to be divorced as an adulteress. Because of what head coverings symbolized in that culture, Paul asks the more liberated women to cover their heads so as not to scandalize the others.
Keener holds to the common Egalitarian interpretation that “head” means “source” (such as the head of a river) rather than authority (such as the head of a government). In addition to this, Keener challenges the traditional interpretation of other verses that seem to support the complementarian interpretation.
Keener interprets verse seven’s “woman is the glory of man” as further evidence of his sexual modesty interpretation. “In short, Paul says, because woman was taken from man, she reflects man’s image, and therefore she ought to cover that image in worship lest it distract observers from attention to God’s image” (Craig Keener, Paul, Woman, and Wives p. 37).
Keener translates verse nine differently than most scholars. Instead of translating the verse as “neither was man created for woman, but woman for man,” he translates it as “created through woman” and “created through man” (emphasis added).
Keener also argues that verse ten is not about the woman being under someone else’s authority, as it has been historically translated. Instead, he argues that the Greek phrase means that the woman has authority over her own head. (Note that the NIV translates the verse like Keener does, but many other commonly used Bible versions translate differently.)
Finally, Keener argues that even if 1 Corinthians 11 is reinforcing male authority, it’s likely an acknowledgement of cultural norms rather than an endorsement of them meant for all times and all cultures. In Keener’s words, “Paul worked within the boundaries of his culture where necessary for the sake of the gospel.” This might be compared to how Paul did not endorse the direct abolition of slavery, but did introduce teachings that reshaped believers’ understandings of slaves and slavery, eventually leading to the decline of slavery throughout the Roman Empire (Ephesians 6:9, Philemon 1, Galatians 3:28).
Strengths of Keener’s position include strong arguments from historical sources about head coverings being associated with modesty. Keener also follows the traditional interpretation more closely than many other egalitarian interpretations and acknowledges the possibility of Paul emphasizing male leadership. This makes Keener’s position less vulnerable to some arguments from historical interpretation than other egalitarian positions (though this is still a weakness of his view).
Challenges to Keener’s position include its dependence on his individual interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:9, which is not corroborated by mainstream Bible translations or the weight of scholarship. Another challenge is that Keener’s logic of a woman needing to cover her head to avoid distracting others (sexual modesty) does not naturally imply a logic behind why a man must leave his head uncovered. Why does man being “the glory of God” specifically imply a need to keep his head uncovered? It seems unlikely that sexual modesty could relate here. Complementarians such as Mike Winger note these two commands should be read in context of each other.
Finally, Keener’s view that Paul may be “working within the boundaries of his culture” regarding gender roles in the same way Paul did with slavery is open to counter-arguments from complementarians. For instance, complementarians note that Paul grounds gender roles in the “very good” creation of Genesis, which implies gender roles are a timeless good rather than a temporary cultural evil like slavery (1 Corinthians 11:7-10, Genesis 2:18).
Are Head Coverings Still Relevant for Christians Today?
Egalitarians consider head coverings to be a culturally specific practice no longer needed for believers today. Complementarian opinions are more mixed.
Culture has a significant impact on which complementarian churches incorporate head coverings. In some cultures, head coverings may carry a similar meaning to what they carried in Paul’s day. Not wearing head coverings to church in such a culture (such as a Russian Orthodox Church), would risk implying a rejection of male headship. Thus, it’s common practice for complementarian women in such cultures to wear head coverings to church.
In other places in the world, head coverings no longer carry this meaning culturally. In the U.S., if a woman does or doesn’t wear a hat, most people won’t give a second thought to what that may or may not mean. Even in complementarian churches in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and many other countries, head coverings are typically not expected. Complementarians in these cultures note that the heart matters more than specific outward symbols or traditions (Matthew 23:25-28). A woman can honor and respect her husband with or without a head covering, and making head coverings an issue in a culture where the tradition is not already established seems like an unnecessary point of division (1 Corinthians 1:10).
Similar to the discussion in Romans 14 on food, the subject of head coverings in complementarian churches often comes down to a matter of cultural context and individual conscience.
What Can We Learn from the Debate on Head Coverings?
1 Corinthians 11 is an incredibly controversial passage that deeply affects our understanding of men, women, and the church. It’s not just an intellectual rabbit hole—it’s a deeply personal topic for many people, particularly women.
As you personally wrestle with how to understand and apply this passage in your own life, take a step back. Consider . . . what biases might you be bringing into your reading of the text? How might your cultural context be influencing your reading? It’s always better to believe the truth, even if it’s different than what we are comfortable with and the process of change is difficult.
Finally, if the complexities of this passage feel overwhelming and you aren’t sure what you believe, that’s okay. Biblical faithfulness matters. Keep pursuing truth. But if you make a mistake in your theology, that won’t change Jesus’s love for you. And remember—he loves those Christians who disagree with you, too. Head coverings are not even close to being a salvation issue, and many thoughtful, godly Christians disagree on this topic. Let us pursue the truth together with humility and remember to keep the essential things first.
Photo Credit: ©Unsplash/srz
