In Genesis 24 we read the account of the marriage between Issac and Rebekah. Abraham (Issac’s father) had sent his servants to the land of his fathers to find a wife for Issac. His servants went as Abraham instructed and prayed for something specific for the Lord to do, to show them which woman would become Issac’s wife. The Lord answered that prayer and Rebekah was shown to be that woman. After they all spoke with her family and received their blessing, Rebekah goes back with Abraham’s servants to meet Issac and become his wife. Later on, Issac is in the field meditating when he looks up and sees people approaching on camels. He starts walking towards them which leads Rebekah (who is on one of the camels) to ask, “Who is that man walking in the field to meet us?” (Gen 24:65). One of the servants tells her that it’s his master, the one who will be her husband. It is at this point where “she took her veil and covered herself.” (Gen 24:65) Once she did this, “Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and he took Rebekah, and she became his wife…” (Gen 24:66)
Since this is an early Biblical record of a woman veiling herself, many wonder how this relates to Paul’s instructions about head covering in 1 Corinthians 11. Before we answer this question we must first review a fundamental principle of Biblical interpretation. Read more
The topic of head covering causes many modern readers to scratch their heads. “Why would Paul want women to cover their heads?And why does he forbid men from doing the same? Surely there has to be a reason.” Thinking that there is no explanation for this practice in the Scriptures, many believers turn to cultural studies to fill in the presumed gaps. When this is done, some form of cultural significance is usually attached to the passage and seen as the key to interpreting it correctly. This then obscures the actual reasoning that the Apostle himself gives. Let’s now turn our attention to the two Greek words that let us know that there is a biblical reason for head covering. Read more
Last Updated: Jan 19/15 (added Reformation Heritage Bible)
What follows is a list of all the commentaries that teach that head covering is for today. We will update this list as we discover new ones and verify them.
If you know of a commentary or study bible that is not mentioned, please let us know by leaving a comment below or e-mailing us so we can look into it.
The Wycliffe Bible Commentary
Commentator: S. Lewis Johnson
Editor(s): Charles F. Pfeiffer & Everett F. Harrison
(Moody Press, 1962) Purchase:Book
“In the final analysis, the hat, or veil, is not the important thing, but the subordination for which it stands. The prescence of both is the ideal.” (Pg 1248 – 1987 Version)
Believer’s Bible Commentary
Commentator: William MacDonald
Editor(s): Charles F. Pfeiffer & Everett F. Harrison
(Thomas Nelson, 1989) Purchase:Book / Logos
“In verses 7-10, Paul teaches the subordination of the woman to the man by going back to creation. This should forever lay to rest any idea that his teaching about women’s covering was what was culturally suitable in his day but not applicable to us today.” (Pg 1785 – 1995 Version)
Commentaries on Romans and 1-2 Corinthians (Ancient Christian Texts)
Commentator: Ambrosiaster
Translator(s): Gerald L. Bray
Editor(s): Thomas C. Oden & Gerald L. Bray
(IVP Academic, 2009) Purchase:Book
“Paul says that the honor and dignity of a man makes it wrong for him to cover his head, because the image of God should not be hidden. Indeed, it ought not to be hidden, for the glory of God is seen in the man.” (Pg 172 – 2009 Version)
The Church’s Bible (1 Corinthians)
Commentator(s): Ambrosiaster, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Severian of Gabala & a dialogue of a Montanist with an Orthodox Christian
Editor(s): Judith L. Kovacs
(Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2005) Purchase:Book / Logos
“…the business of whether to cover one’s head was legislated by nature (see 1 Cor 11:14-15). When I say “nature,” I mean “God.” For he is the one who created nature. Take note, therefore, what great harm comes from overturning these boundaries! And don’t tell me that this is a small sin.” (pg 180 – 2005 version – Quoting John Chrysostom)
The Ryrie Study Bible
Various Bible Versions
Various Publishers Purchase:Book
“Women should be veiled or covered in the meeting of the church, and the men should not. Paul’s reasons were based on theology (headship v.3), the order of creation (v.7-9), and the presence of angels in the meeting (v.10). None of these reasons was based on contemporary social custom.” (page 303 – 1976 NASV by Moody Publishers)
The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Black’s New Testament Commentaries)
Commentator: C.K. Barrett
General Editor: Henry Chadwick, D.D
(A&C Black Publishers, 1971) Purchase:Book / Logos
“This makes it the more necessary to ask the question whether Paul is here simply dependant on custom, so that ‘in communities where it is no longer a disgrace for a woman to be “shorn”, the argument has lost its point” (Hooker, N.T.S. x410—see below, p. 253). This is probably not so; Paul thinks that nature (see verse 14) expects a woman to be covered, so that for her to be uncovered is not only an offense against custom but also an unnatural act.” (pg 251 – 2nd Edition, 1971 Version)
Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians
Commentator: Frédéric Louis Godet (1812-1900)
(Originally published by T&T Clark, 1886)
Various Publishers offer an English reprint Purchase:Book / Logos
“Was this conviction solely a matter of time and place, so that it is possible to suppose, that if he lived now, and in the West, the apostle would express himself differently? This supposition is not admissible; for the reasons which he alleges are taken, not from contemporary usages, but from permanent facts, which will last as long as the present earthly economy.” (pg 133 – Vol II – Zondervan, 1957)
The Numerical Bible (Volume 6)
Commentator: F.W. Grant (1834-1902)
(Loizeaux Brothers, 1902) Purchase:LogosRead:Online
“There are some practical consequences in the exhibition of this order of things upon the earth. If a man pray or prophesy having his head covered, he dishonors his head; in itself a very small thing surely,–in that which it signifies not small at all. Everything depends upon the truth which is in it…All this has reference, of course, to present display. It is not a question of what is final, what is heavenly, what is eternal. It is God’s order as He has instituted it, and which we are bound to respect. There is meaning in it also, and we shall suffer if we refuse it…” (pg 501)
The First Epistle to the Corinthians
Commentator: H. L. Goudge
Editor: Walter Lock
(Methuen & Co, 1903) Purchase:Logos
“…the Jewish and Gentile members of the Corinthian church would have grown up with diverse customs, and in the interests of orderly worship, it was well for the Christian practice to be definitely settled. S. Paul’s decision, though not ignoring the dictates of natural propriety, is based upon Christian doctrine. The rule of faith here, as everywhere, gives the rule of worship.” (page 94)
F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testament Commentary
Commentator: F.B. Hole
1947 Purchase:BookRead:Online
“Now if any believer, man or woman, has to do with God and His things, whether it be in praying (i.e., addressing oneself to Him), or in prophesying (i.e., speaking forth words from Him), there is to be the observance of these directions as to the uncovering or covering of the head, as a sign that God’s order is recognized and obeyed.”
A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians
Commentator: Thomas Charles Edwards
(Hamilton, Adams & Co., 1885) Purchase:Logos
“…the reference in [1 Cor 11:2] to the ordinances or traditions suggests that the use of the veil by the women and by them alone was a peculiarly Christian arrangement, imposed on the Churches partly to distinguish Christian worship from that of Jew or Greek, partly to symbolize the mystical doctrine of the headship of Christ.” (page 270 – from the 1979 reprint by Klock & Klock)
The Expositors Greek Testament
Commentator: G.G. Findlay
Editor: William Robertson Nicoll
(Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1956) Purchase:LogosRead:Online
“Paul’s directions do not agree precisely with current practice. Jewish men covered their heads at prayers with the Tallith…Amongst the Greeks, both sexes worshipped with uncovered head…while Roman men and women alike covered their heads during religious rites. The usage here prescribed seems to be an adaptation of Greek custom to Christian conceptions. With us the difference of sex is more strongly marked in the general attire than with the ancients; but the draped head has still its appropriateness, and the distinction laid down in this passage has been universally observed.” (page 873)
Practical Reflections on Every Verse of the New Testament
Commentator: Anonymous Clergyman
(London : Rivingtons, 1883) Read:Online
“Let us have no other faith or worship but such as was set up at the first, and has prevailed throughout the Church. We should believe and worship like the saints of old, that is enough for us. Stand on the old ways and you will be safe. This applies not only to small things, like women covering their heads, but to all matters which are in dispute amongst Christians.” (page 319)
The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible
General Editor: Joel Beeke
NT Editor: Gerald Bilkes
(Reformation Heritage Books, 2014) Purchase:Hardcover / Kindle / Logos (Pre-pub)
“When You come to the house of God for corporate worship, how you conduct yourself matters. Paul argues for proper decorum in public worship according to His created order.” (page 1661)
In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul instructs women that they are to wear a head covering when “praying or prophesying”. The Greek word behind “woman” is “gynē” and it can be translated as “woman” or “wife” depending on the context. While almost all English versions of the Bible 1) Examples include the NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, HCSB and NET versions
translate gynē as “woman” in verses 2-16, the popular ESV version 2) The RSV also advocates this view by translating 1 Cor 11:3 as ‘the head of a woman is her husband'
differs by translating some of the references as “wife”. This has led many to wonder if head covering is only applicable for those that are married. Behind the ESV’s translation decision, is an assumption that a woman wearing a head covering was a 1st century Roman symbol of being a matron (respectable married woman). It is our objective in this article to prove that Paul’s teaching on head covering is for all men and women, regardless of their marital status. Read more
References
1.
↑ Examples include the NIV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, HCSB and NET versions
2.
↑ The RSV also advocates this view by translating 1 Cor 11:3 as ‘the head of a woman is her husband'
In ‘Roman Wives, Roman Widows‘ Bruce Winter makes a case that the covering that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 11 is a “marriage veil” which was worn by all faithful, married, Roman women. Those who cast it off were “replicating the attitude and action of ‘new’ wives” 1) Bruce Winter – Roman Wives, Roman Widows (Eerdmans, 2003) Page 77
whose “social life was reported to have been pursued at the expense of family responsibilities”. 2) Bruce Winter – Roman Wives, Roman Widows (Eerdmans, 2003) Page 5
These women would also often have “illicit liaisons that defied the previously accepted norms of marriage fidelity and chastity”. 3) Bruce Winter – Roman Wives, Roman Widows (Eerdmans, 2003) Page 5
So Winter defines the head covering as “the symbol of the modesty and chastity expected of a married woman.” 4) Bruce Winter – Roman Wives, Roman Widows (Eerdmans, 2003) Page 80″
This is the cultural view of head covering that he subscribes to, but what sets his work apart from others is the substantial amount of evidence for each of his points. Though we’ve already given our thoughts on the cultural view we’d like to interact more specifically with the points he makes and the evidence he gives to support them.
One of Winter’s points is to convey how it would be perceived if a 1st century Roman woman removed her ‘marriage veil’ in public. His premise is that, “As the veil symbolised the husband’s authority over his wife, the omission of the veil by a married woman was a sign of her “withdrawing” herself from the marriage.”5) Bruce Winter – Roman Wives, Roman Widows (Eerdmans, 2003) Page 81
It is our objective to focus on this specific point and show that the evidence that is cited for such a claim is found wanting. Read more
References
1.
↑ Bruce Winter – Roman Wives, Roman Widows (Eerdmans, 2003) Page 77
2.
↑ Bruce Winter – Roman Wives, Roman Widows (Eerdmans, 2003) Page 5
3.
↑ Bruce Winter – Roman Wives, Roman Widows (Eerdmans, 2003) Page 5
4.
↑ Bruce Winter – Roman Wives, Roman Widows (Eerdmans, 2003) Page 80″
5.
↑ Bruce Winter – Roman Wives, Roman Widows (Eerdmans, 2003) Page 81
In 1 Cor 11:10 Paul says that “the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head”. The Greek word behind “authority” is “exousia” and it’s used 103 times in the New Testament. There are two differing views on how to understand “authority” in this passage. The traditional interpretation sees “authority” as belonging to the woman’s husband, which she submits to. The head covering then is a symbol of her place in creation as being subject to man. The modern interpretation sees “authority” as belonging to the woman. The head covering therefore is a symbol of her right to pray & prophesy in the assembly. It is the purpose of this article to help familiarize yourself with both positions, by giving a strong positive case for each view. We will then conclude by sharing which position we hold to.Read more
[Series introduction:This post is part of a series that examines what certain leaders in church history believed about head covering. Their arguments, choice of language and conclusions should not be misconstrued as an endorsement from us. The purpose of this series is to faithfully show what they believed about covering rather than only selectively quoting the parts we agree with.]
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was an Italian Dominican friar and priest and an immensely influential philosopher and theologian. He is considered by the Catholic Church to be its greatest theologian and one of the thirty-three Doctors of the Church.
In the 1200’s Thomas Aquinas published a commentary on the book of Corinthians. It’s a thorough treatment that shows us how he understood head covering and how it was practiced in the middle ages.
To set the stage, Aquinas believed the focus of 1 Corinthians 11 was issues related to the Eucharist, and head covering related to proper dress during this practice. He said “[the Corinthians] erred in clothing, namely, because the women gathered for the sacred mysteries with heads uncovered”. So for Aquinas, head covering was a church issue.
He gave us two reasons to explain what it was that head covering symbolized. The first reason was “because a veil put on the head designates the power of another over the head of a person existing in the order of nature. The second reason he gave was, “to show that the glory of God should not be concealed but revealed; but man’s glory is to be concealed.” So head covering was a symbol that you were subject to another in nature and it was also meant to conceal the glory of man. Read more
