Chapel Books
1725 South Wahsatch Ave.
Colorado Springs, CO. 80906

This manuscript addresses the issue of whether a woman should cover her head in a public worship service. It contains an exposition of First Corinthians 11:1-16 and a brief summary of early church interpretation.

Background and Context

The apostle Paul wrote the book of First Corinthians, from Ephesus, circa A.D. 54. The majority of this letter addresses practical issues which may arise in the local church. Part of First Corinthians is an attempt to correct the contentions which were brought to Paul’s attention by the household of Chloe (1:11). Other sections answer questions which the Corinthian Christians addressed to Paul (7:1). Chapters 11-14 deal with public worship. The main divisions include (1) the Veiling of Women, 11:2-16; (2) disorder at the Lord’s Supper, 11:17-34; (3) misuse of Spiritual Gifts, 12:1-14:40.

Exposition

Each verse of Scripture is translated from the Greek text as literally as possible. This is done in order to give the reader a specific understanding of the words and phrases in their original context. Words or phrases in italics are not in the original text, but have been added to complete the English translation.

11:1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.

"Imitators" is the Greek word mimetai. We derive the English word ‘mime’ or ‘mimic’ from this. The apostle Paul wanted the Corinthian Christians to know that the things which he said and did came from following Christ.

11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you remembered me, and just as I handed down to you, you hold fast the traditions.

Verse 2 is the introduction to chapters 11-14. Some believe that the subject of collective public worship is not addressed until verse 17 of chapter 11. This is because the phrase "come together" is not used in verses 1-16. Verses 2-16 give an introduction to the rest of chapters 11-14. In verses 2-16 Paul lays the foundation of the principle of Divine Order. The first 16 verses deal with the subject of headship. The rest of chapters 11-14 emphasize order with in the local church gathering. This does not mean that the activity mentioned in verses 2-16 took place outside of the collective congregation of saints. The principle of headship was to observed at the Lord’s Supper but this was not the purpose for believers coming together. The purpose of these collective gatherings was to observes the Lord’s Supper. Verse 16 specifies that Paul is speaking of public worship (the churches of God).

"I praise you" (epaino) looks forward to "I do not praise you" (ouk epaino) in verse 17. In his usual tactful and gracious manner Paul first praises the Corinthian Christians for remembering him and keeping the traditions. The word translated "traditions" (paradosis) can refer to "the traditions of elders" or "the traditions of men" (Matt. 15:2; Mark 7:3; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8). These negate and harm the cause of Christ. It is also used in reference to the instructions of inspired men (2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6). Tradition is something which is "transmitted" or "handed down". By using the term tradition Paul indicated that he was teaching the things which Christ had entrusted to him.

The word "but" (de) is adversative. Paul wanted the Corinthian believers to know that which was not previously mentioned. Either by previous letter or by word of mouth, Paul had instructed the Corinthians to gather together for public worship. Paul was now led by the Spirit to address the subject of a woman praying or prophesying in a public worship service, and that with her head uncovered. He bases his arguments on the principle of Divine order.

The head of every man is Christ. Paul opens with the middle of three relationships. The head is that to which the body is dependent and subordinate. If the principle of order and subordination is not followed then confusion and dissension will result. "Every" (pantos) is emphatic. It includes every male. It is not limited to those men who are recipients of redemption. Christ is the Creator, and therefore, the head of all men. That unbelievers may be unaware of this fact does not in any way nullify the truth of this statement. The definite article is used with the word "head" only in the first of these three mentioned relationships. This may imply that a man may be subservient to different heads in this life (i.e. masters, government), but Christ alone is the absolute head.

Head of woman is the man. Paul uses the Greek word andros "man" rather than anthropos to mark the contrast with "woman" (gunaikos). In both Roman and Greek societies the role of women was generally one of servitude to the desires of men. Often times this resulted in slavery or prostitution. The Corinthian women may have misunderstood their new found freedom and abused it to the extent that they no longer saw a distinction in roles between men and women. Galatians 3:28 teaches that spiritually, in Christ, there is no difference between men and women. This does not abolish the God ordained distinction in roles.

The headship of man has its origin in creation itself. Man’s headship is not just a result of the fall. In the realm of creation head of woman is the man. Head lacks the article as well as the indefinite pronoun every. This means that the headship of man over the woman is not as absolute as the headship of Christ over man. It also means that the man, not merely the husband of the woman, is above the woman.

Head of Christ is God. Paul mentions the Divine order which exists between God the Father and God the Son. Christ came to earth to do the will of the Father. Christ is equal, yet subordinate, to God the Father. This statement may have been included to make it easier for women to understand and recognize the principle of man’s headship over woman.

11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having something on his head, dishonors his head.

Prayer is speaking to God in supplications, worship, and praise. The evidence set forth that prayer, in this context, refers to speaking in tongues is not strong. To prophesy, means to "proclaim a divine revelation" or "speak under divine inspiration". It may include, but is not limited to, the prediction of future events.

A man is not to pray or prophesy in a public worship service with something on his head. Literally the phrase is "having down on his head" (kata kephales echon). The ‘veil’ or ‘covering’ (kalumma) is understood in the context. Greeks normally prayed bareheaded; the Romans with the head veiled. It is uncertain whether the Jews used the tallith or veil in prayer as early as this. We should not assume that Paul is supporting the Greek practice of praying bare-headed in opposition to a Roman or Jewish custom of praying while covered. Paul was led by the Spirit to teach independent Christian principles.

It is uncertain whether verse 4 should read his head, referring to Christ, or his own head. The contextual relationship between verses 3 and 4 may indicate the dishonoring of Christ. The use of the phrase "having something on his head" in the immediately preceding clause suggests that the man is disgracing himself.

The reason that a man is not to pray or prophesy with his head covered is that such conduct dishonors his head. Tertullian’s comment: "We pray bare headed because we blush not", is not quite the point. The covering of one’s head symbolizes subjection to a visible human superior. In a public worship service all other men are his equals. If a man covers his head he acknowledges that he is dependent on some earthly head other than his heavenly head which is Christ. If a man covers his head in public worship he disgraces his head. The veil is a sign of subjection rooted in the Divine Order of creation. The purpose of the uncovered man is to represent the dominion of Christ. If a man veils his head he wears the covering of a woman and dishonors his head. There is no compulsion to believe the Corinthian men were wearing veils in the local assembly. The context of this passage is the veiling of women not the unveiling of men. The majority of the text focuses on the need for the woman to cover her head. The apostle Paul uses the uncovered man to illustrate the necessity of the covered woman.

11:5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors the head of herself, for it is one and the same with being shaved.

The position of the woman is contrasted with that of the man. The unveiled woman does not submit herself to God’s Divine order. By uncovering her head she dishonors her head. The question arises whether Paul allowed a woman to verbally pray or prophesy in the local assembly if she wore a veil?

1 Corinthians 14:34 reads: "Let your women keep silent (sigao) in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says."

1 Timothy 2:11-12 reads: "Let a woman learn in silence (hesuxia) with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence (hesuxia)."

These passages clearly teach that in a public worship service women were not to speak at all. Some attempt to reconcile these apparent differences by claiming that chapter 14 only prohibits women from whispering, asking questions, or engaging in private conversations which would disrupt the worship service. It is impossible to restrict the meaning of the word "speak" (laleo) to this limited usage. One would expect that Paul would also prohibit men from disrupting the worship service in such a manner. The term ‘speaking’ clearly includes prayer, prophecy, tongues, and teaching (cf. 1 Cor. 14:6). Chapter 14 does not only prohibit inappropriate or ill-timed speaking, it forbids speaking.

Some claim that the ‘general rule’ was that women were not to speak. If the Holy Spirit led a woman to pray or prophesy, in such a way as to not teach or have authority over the man, then she was allowed if she was veiled. This may be a possible solution but it still appears unsatisfactory. Prophecy was an authoritative announcement to all members of the congregation, including men (1 Cor. 14:22). Are we to assume that if a prophetic statement came from a woman it had no authority over men? There is no mention of such gender biased prophecies in the New Testament. What would be the purpose of an unauthoritative gender biased prophecy? Prophecy was used to edify, exhort, and comfort all who were present (1 Cor. 11: 3).

In chapter 14 prophecy and teaching are spiritual gifts. In 1 Timothy 2:12 teaching is not necessarily a spiritual gift, but an act which a woman is not to be perform over a man. Are we to assume that a prophetic statement which came from a woman would not include any teaching? Women did possess the gift of prophecy (Acts 2:17; 21:9), but the word prophetess is not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 14. They may have used this gift only outside of public worship.

An interesting phenomenon is occurring in some modern churches. First, it is claimed that 1 Corinthians 11:5 allows a woman to take the lead in public worship. Then, it is claimed that the command for a woman to veil her head, was only cultural and does not apply to Christians today. This results in women praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered; something Scripture clearly forbids.

Paul was inspired to teach that women were not to speak, they were to be silent. The Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines the word sigao : "be silent, say nothing, stop speaking, keep silent". The word hesuxia is defined: "quietness, rest, silence". It is inconsistent to think that the Holy Spirit would inspire a woman to act in a manner contrary to inspired Scripture.

A probable solution to this apparent dilemma is that Paul is addressing the issue of the propriety of a woman speaking in public worship unveiled, but says nothing about the propriety of speaking in public worship itself.

Calvin writes: In disapproving of the one, he does not approve of the other.

Those who propose that a veiled woman may speak in a public worship service may be assuming something upon the text which is not explicitly stated. There is no plain mandate in the entire New Testament which teaches that a woman may speak in a public worship service. There are clear statements in the New Testament which prohibit women from teaching or having authority over men. There are also clear statements which teach she must be silent in public worship.

This would certainly be consistent with the teaching methods of Paul. In 6:4 the apostle lays down a restriction in regards to lawsuits among believers. A brother is not to go to court against another brother if the court is officiated by unbelievers. In 6:7 Paul condemns lawsuits between Christians altogether. In 8:10 the passage seems to authorize the eating of sacrificed meat in the temple of idols. In 10:19-22 this practice is expressly forbidden.

The woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered not only dishonors her head, but she is the same as if her head were shaved. The grammatical construction of verse 5 shows that the unveiled woman dishonors her own (heautes) head, and not her husband. This is shown by the following clause; "for it (her head) is one and the same with being shaved". The woman who unveils her head in public worship puts herself in the same class with the woman whose hair has been shaved.

If a woman refuses to cover her head, let her be consistently masculine and cut off her hair. In Greek grammar the middle and passive forms of certain verb conjugations are the same. The verbs in verse 6 are most likely middle, not passive, and represent the woman’s own actions. If the woman does not veil herself in public worship she acts so unwomanly that she should have her hair cut close. If a woman begins to take the role of a man (by unveiling her head), she should be consistent (and cut her hair off). Paul is not telling women that they should discard their veils and come to meetings with shaved heads. He is showing women that it would be just as shameful to unveil their heads as it would be to shave their heads.

Chrysostom writes: "If she flings away the covering provided by Divine ordinance, let her also fling away the covering provided by nature".

Paul does not refer specifically to praying or prophesying in verse 6, he speaks in general. This shows even more clearly than verse 5, that Paul is teaching that women should be veiled in public worship meetings at all times. This verse also proves that Paul was referring to a literal veil and not just the woman’s long hair. The Greek word used "to cover" is katakaluptetai. All standard Greek lexicons define the word in similar terms: "cover with a veil". Homer, Herodotus, Josephus, and the Septuagint also use the word to mean a literal covering of one’s head.

There is further proof that Paul was speaking of a woman wearing a veil and not simply having long hair. Paul specifically mentions that a woman is not to have her head uncovered. Would it be possible for a woman to have short hair throughout the week and then suddenly have long hair during worship meetings? Can a man’s hair be long throughout the week and suddenly become short during worship meetings?

If 1 Corinthians 11 only referred to the length of a woman’s hair then verse 6 should read as follows:

"For if a woman does not have long hair, let her also cut her hair. But if it is shameful for a woman to cut her hair or shave her head, let her have long hair."

Why would Paul tell a woman who did not have long hair to have her hair cut? If the passage only referred to length of hair, Paul could have simply said "men should have short hair and women should have long hair". There would be no reason for a lengthy discourse on coverings or veils.

11:7 For man indeed ought not to cover the head, being the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

Verse 7 states that a man is not to veil his head. The reason for this is that he is the image and glory of God. The word "being" (huparxon) could also be translated "since he is". Man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Woman was also created in the image of God, but that fact is not mentioned here. This verse focuses on the relation of woman to man, not of woman to God. Man is the crown of creation and reflects the glory of God. His head is to remain unveiled because by original constitution he is the image and glory of God. Woman was created in a way which was different from everything else. She was formed by God from the side of man (Genesis 2:21-22). Woman was formed to reflect the glory of man. This is why Paul calls her the glory, but not the image, of man. Paul does not base his teaching on the marriage relationship, but rather on the creation relationship between woman and man.

Some claim that a woman must cover her head at all times and not just during public worship. This has ramifications for the man as well. If the woman must be covered at all times the man must be uncovered at all times. Ironically, among those that demand that a woman must cover her head at all times, the men quite often wear hats. Those who believe that First Corinthians 11 requires a woman to cover her head at all times base their conclusions on 2 main assumptions:

1. The Middle East culture in which Paul was from compelled a woman to be veiled at all times. This is also the basic argument used by those who claim women do not have to cover their heads in public worship. Although it is true that a woman normally veiled her head in the public, there is no textual reason to believe that Paul based his teaching on either Middle East or Greco-Roman culture. First Corinthians 11 is based on independent Christian principles. The Middle East culture compelled a woman to veil not only her head, but her face as well. There is no mention in First Corinthians 11 that a woman was to veil her face. The pictures on the catacomb walls show women with their heads, not their faces, veiled.
2. A woman should pray and be ready to witness at all times. It is true that a woman should "pray without ceasing" (1 Thessalonians 5:17). This would include when she is lying in bed, bathing, and other various times in which a woman would be unable to cover her head. Men are also commanded to pray without ceasing and "be always ready to give an answer" (1 Peter 3:15). Since a man is commanded to pray without ceasing, he would not be allowed to ever protect his head with a hat. The problem appears to originate in a misunderstanding of the words "pray" (proseuxomai) and "prophesy" (propheteuo). The instructions of First Corinthians 11 refer to verbal communication in the local assembly. The word "prophesy" specifically refers to the proclamation of a divinely inspired message. It could include predicting the future (Acts 11:28), knowing the past (John 4:19), or looking into the heart (Luke 7:39). In First Corinthians 14 "prophesy" refers to a spiritual gift which is to be used for edification of the saints (vs. 4). New Testament prophets admonished, consoled, encouraged, and censured (vss. 3, 25). Those who teach that a woman must cover her head while witnessing completely overlook the fact that prophecy is not for unbelievers but for believers" (cf. vs. 22).

11:8-9 For man is not out of woman, but woman out of man. For also man was not created for the woman, but woman for the man.

Verses 8 and 9 contain a parenthetical statement which confirms that the woman is man’s glory. Woman was created "out of" (ek) and "for" (gar) man, and not vice versa. The reason for the subordination of the woman is recorded in the annals of history (Genesis 2:18, 23). Woman was created to be a helper suitable for and corresponding to man. Headship is part of God’s original creation. The grace of God (receiving Christ) does not set aside the government of God (obeying Christ).

11:10 Because of this the woman ought to have authority upon her head, because of the angels.

Man is the reflection of the glory of God, woman is only a reflection of that reflection. Because woman is the glory of man and because woman was formed from man, she is to have authority on her head. Verse 10 is the natural conclusion to the statements of verses 7-9.

The word "authority" is exousia. It can be translated authority, dominion, liberty, or right. The woman is to have authority on her head. The veil is a symbol of the woman’s authority in corporate worship. The biblical roles of men and woman are clearly defined. The man has the authority to uncover his head, the woman has the authority to cover her head. Paul uses the word exousia to refer to the liberties which believers have in Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:9, 9:4-6). The woman is at liberty to approach God with her head veiled.

A difficulty arises in understanding the grammatical relationship of the phrase: "because of the angels". Verse 10 begins with the words "Because of this" (dia touto). The first part of verse 10 makes good contextual sense if taken to modify the statements in verses 7-9. Is Paul now giving a second reason? The final phrase begins with the words "because of" (dia tous), but it is not connected with a particle such as: and or also. It may be that Paul is presenting the same reason in another form.

There is only one reasonable interpretation for the phrase "because of the angels" (dia tous angelous). Namely, that angels observe Christian worship. Angels rejoice over one sinner who repents (Luke 15:10). Angels desire to look into the truth of the gospel (1 Peter 1:12). Angels are ministering spirits sent forth to serve those who will inherit salvation (Hebrews 1:14). It should not surprise us that angels are invisibly present during worship. The woman is to veil her head, not just because of man, but because of the angels. If the unveiled woman is unconcerned about offending men, she must remember that she will also be offending angels.

The text does not state whether this refers to good angels, bad angels, or both. Tertullian’s claim that fallen angels may be tempted or excited by viewing unveiled women has little substance. There is no indication that Paul is alluding to the events recorded in Genesis 6:4. Both good angels as well as bad angels have ample opportunity to see unveiled women outside of Christian worship.

This passage has produced various interpretations which the serious Bible student should reject. Many of these stem from the inability of modern interpreters to understand statements which were obvious to the recipients of Paul’s epistle. Some mistakenly allege that ‘angels’ refers to bishops, presbyters, or the clergy. Some erroneously maintain that ‘angels’ refers to spies sent by unbelievers to observe Christian worship. Others suggest that "because of the angels" means because the angels do so. In response to the last statement there are no scriptural passages which teach that angels worship God with their heads veiled.

11:11 Nevertheless, neither is man apart from woman, nor woman apart from man, in the Lord.

Paul introduces a statement of balance to show the mutual dependence of man and woman, in the Lord. The woman was created to be a suitable helper for the man. The man was created to be the leader of the woman. Some believe the phrase "in the Lord" (en Kurio) refers to the spiritual equality which men and women have by means of their position in Christ (cf. Gal. 3:28). It is more probable that the phrase is included to show the true nature and limitations of the subordination of the woman to the man. The phrase "in the Lord" is used to show that the directive which Paul is giving is by Divine appointment, according to the will of the Lord (cf. 1 Thess. 4:1; 2 Thess. 3:4; Gal. 5:10; Eph. 4:17).

The absence of Greek articles shows that these words are not specifically limited to a man and his wife. The principle of subordination refers to men and women in general. The differences between man and woman were established in the beginning of creation. They do not disappear because one is ‘in the Lord’. Paul seeks to balance his position. Christianity liberated the woman from the inferior servitude of paganism. It elevated the woman to her rightful place of honor and dignity. Liberty in Christ does not mean the distinction in gender roles was to be discarded. The creation ordinance must be maintained. The grace of God does not set aside the government of God. The woman is to be distinguished from the man by veiling her head.

11:12 For as the woman is from the man, so also the man by means of the woman, but all things are from God.

Verse 12 gives the reason why man and woman are interdependent. At the beginning of creation woman was taken from the side of man; since then, man is born from the womb of woman. Neither gender should show contempt for the other. God is the creator of all things including subordination and order.

Paul calls on the Corinthians to use their sense of decorum to determine whether a woman should approach God in worship with her head uncovered. The question is worded in such a way as to expect a negative answer. The apostle recognizes that intuitive judgments may lead to correct conclusions (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:2, 10:15).

Some claim that this teaching of the apostle came about because this was the practice of his home city, Tarsus. Paul appeals to the order of creation, angels, nature, and the Corinthian’s sense of propriety. No mention is made of the practice of women in Tarsus.

11:14 Or does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

Paul moves from instinctive impropriety to external confirmation. The word "nature" (phusis) refers to the regular natural order of things which God created. Nature teaches that the wearing of long hair is a disgrace to the man. Short hair is given to the man to represent his uncovered head. From pictures and reports of previous cultures from around the world it is generally true that women wore their hair much longer than men. Jewish, Greek, and Roman men wore their hair short. In the catacombs, pictures of men including Jesus are represented with short hair. Later church councils censured men who wore long hair and considered it a mark of effeminacy. There are instances in history when men wore long hair but these do not detract from the argument. Such cases were either exceptional or temporary because nature teaches otherwise.

11:15 But if a woman has long hair, it is glory for her; because the long hair has been given in place of arrayment.

Long hair worn by a man is dishonoring to him. Long hair worn by a woman is her glory. A man’s hair may grow long but it is only the woman who is at liberty to wear it long. Her long hair is her glory and distinguishes her from the man.

An ironic situation occurs when it is claimed that the woman’s long hair is the only ‘covering’ which Paul is speaking of. When verse 15 is compared with some of the preceding verses it is impossible for long hair to be the only ‘covering’. Verse 6 distinguishes between the uncovered head and hair that is cut short. This statement shows that one’s hair may be long yet still uncovered.

Chrysostom writes: "And if it be given her for a covering," say you, "wherefore need she add another covering?" That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection."

Calvin writes: "Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it".

The majority of English translations add to the confusion by translating the word peribolaiou as "covering" in verse 15. It is completely different and unrelated to those words used in verses 4, 5, 6, 7, and 13. It is only used elsewhere in the New Testament in Hebrews 1:12, there it refers to a cloak. The related verb periballo is used 24 times in the New Testament. In most of these passages it is translated "clothed" or "arrayed". The basic meaning of katakalupto is to "cover" or "veil". The basic meaning or periballo is to "throw" or "wrap around". Verses 4, 5, 6, 7, and 13 refer to the covering (or uncovering) of the head with the veil. Verse 15 refers to the woman’s long hair being an enveloping mantle.

An issue arises over the meaning of the Greek word anti in verse 15. It normally means "instead of" or "opposite". It can also mean "for", "as", or "equivalent to". Most lexicons list verse 15 as using the word in the latter context. Either way it does not mean that the woman’s long hair takes the place of a cloth veil. If the word is translated "instead of" it means that her long hair takes the place of arrayment (peribolaiou). If the word is translated "as" it means that her long hair is equivalent to arrayment (peribolaiou). Her long hair is not used "instead of" being covered (katakalupto) or "as" a veil (kalumma).

11:16 But if anyone thinks to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the churches of God.

The words of chapter 11, verse 16, reflect the same tone as those recorded in chapter 14, verses 36-38. The Corinthians needed to realize that Paul was chosen by God to establish correct decorum in congregational worship.

The word ‘contentious’ (philoneikos) means "love of strife". Contentious people are disposed to disputing for the sake of disputation. Paul recognized that there would be those in Corinth who would argue that women were not required to cover their heads during worship. If any one "is minded to be" (dokei) contentious, Paul wanted to remind them that "we" (the apostles), nor any of the churches had such a custom.

The word ‘custom’ (sunetheian) refers to the practice of women worshipping with unveiled heads. Paul maintains that women covered their heads in every church and the Corinthian women should do the same (cf. 1:2, 7:17, 14:33). Some believe that ‘custom’ refers to the practice of being contentious. The love of disputing is a fault, but not a religious custom (cf. John 18:39). There would be no reason for Paul to claim that the apostles do not have a custom of contentiousness. The Greek word toiauten is correctly translated "such" not "other". It refers back to verse 13 and the propriety of a woman praying with her head unveiled. The only ecclesiastical custom mentioned in the entire context is the practice of a woman being unveiled. Paul asserts that neither the apostles nor the churches of God have a custom of allowing a woman to pray with her head uncovered.

Historical Interpretation

Catacomb Art (A.D. 100-500)

The historical practices of the early Church can assist modern Christians in determining the meaning and application of this particular text. Pictures on catacomb walls depict Christian women with veiled heads, not faces. Men, including Jesus, are depicted with short uncovered hair.

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 153-217) Clement wrote a work entitled "The Instructor". In this work he quotes 1 Corinthians 11:5 and states: "For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled".

Tertullian (ca. A.D. 150-220) Tertullian wrote a work entitled "On the Veiling of Virgins". In this treatise he argues that unmarried women (virgins) should be veiled as well as married women. Tertullian never questions whether it is appropriate for a woman to cover her head during worship. It appears that Tertullian’s opponents had misinterpreted the Scripture to mean that only a married woman was subordinate to man so only a married woman was required to cover her head.

Chapter 1 reads: "Having already undergone the trouble peculiar to my opinion, I will show in Latin also that it behooves our virgins to be veiled from the time that they have passed the turning-point of their age: that this observance is exacted by truth, on which no one can impose prescription - no space of times, no influence of persons, no privilege of regions".

Tertullian reasoned that the practice of a woman covering her head was rooted in the truth of Christ Himself. Notice his statement that no time, person, nor geographic region was exempt from obedience to the biblical mandate regarding head coverings.

Chapter 2 reads: "Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of Churches keep their virgins covered. There are places, too, beneath this (African) sky, where this practice obtains; lest any ascribe the custom to Greek or barbarian Gentilehood".

Tertullian assumes that all married Christian women will cover their heads. In most of the churches ‘virgins’ still veiled their heads. A small number of churches were allowing ‘virgins’ to be uncovered. Notice his statement that the practice of virgins being veiled was not to be attributed to Greek or Gentile culture. Tertullian understood that the veiling of virgins was based on Christian principles.

Tertullian’s discussion on ‘veiling’ covers 17 chapters. He bases his arguments on the original creation and Eve’s subordinate position to Adam. He also claims virgins are to cover their heads "because of the angels". He believes that virgins, as well as married women, should veil their head because: "Christ is He who bids the espoused and wives of others to veil themselves".

Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 170-236) "And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering".

The Constitution of the Holy Apostles (ca. A.D. 250-325) Book III, section 6 reads: "We do not permit our ‘women to teach in the Church’ but only to pray and hear those that teach."

Elucidation reads: "Finally, let me suggest that there are fragments of the apostle’s instructions (paradosis) every where scattered throughout his Epistles, such as the minute canon concerning the veiling of women in acts of worship, insisting upon it with a length of argument which in one of the apostolic fathers would be considered childish. He also insisted that his tradition (taxis) is from the Lord".

Chrysostom (ca. A.D. 347-407) Chrysostom wrote a Homily on First Corinthians. His exposition of the text shows that he believed Christian women were to veil their heads during all forms of worship.

His comments on verse 4 read: "Well then: the man he compelleth not to be always uncovered, but only when he prays. "For every man," saith he, "praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head." But the woman he commands to be at all times covered. Wherefore also having said, "Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head unveiled, dishonoreth her head," he stayed not at this point only, but also proceeded to say, "for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven."

Jerome (ca. A.D. 347-420) In a letter to Sabinianus, Jerome states that virgins and widows in Egypt and Syria cut their hair for reasons of personal hygiene. He commends them for obeying the apostle’s command to veil their head.

Conclusion

Some early Christians left extant manuscripts that address the subject of head coverings. All affirm that women should veil their heads during worship. No mention is made that long hair is the only covering. All authors based their arguments on the divine order of creation and ‘because of the angels’. None encourage Christian women to cover their heads merely because it was cultural. There are no extant records which oppose this teaching. The only controversy mentioned is that some believed only married women (not virgins) needed to cover their heads.