Why the VEIL/CLOTH-COVERING POSITION is an Invalid Doctrine

1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-16

POCKETSERMONS.org
By Rick Cutter (contact)

The only New Testament teachings about the Head Covering for Christian women are found in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Many devout Christians have concluded from this passage that God wants a Christian woman to wear a cloth covering on her head (e.g., a doily, scarf, veil, shawl, etc). Some believe their covering must be worn in public, others think only in worship, and still others contend it must be worn only when a woman prays or teaches God’s Word.

I call this set of beliefs the “Veil Position” because many who hold to it have chosen to wear veils versus other types of cloth head coverings.

Although Veil Position believers have varying views, the following theories seem to be commonly held:

(1) The “Two Coverings” theory:
This is the belief that Paul in this passage is not describing one but two head-coverings—and only the first head covering is required (this being the covering that women must wear whenever praying/teaching God’s Word), The “second head-covering” is not required to be worn by women at any time. It is sometimes viewed as a “hair-covering” rather than a “head-covering.”

(2) The “Removable Covering” theory:
This is the belief that a woman’s required head-covering must be readily “removable.” So, since a woman’s long hair cannot be readily taken off and put back on, then it cannot be the covering that God “requires” of the woman whenever she would pray/teach God’s Word. On the other hand—per the Removable Covering theory—since cloth coverings are removable, then they are the coverings the Bible is talking about (to be worn when a woman would pray/teach the Word).

So, let’s now examine the validity of each of these two Veil Position theories in turn. Let’s take a careful verse-by-verse examination of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 to see if: (1) There’s any evidence of a “second” head-covering; and/or, (2) There’s any evidence that the woman’s head-covering “must be removable.” And as you go through the following verses, I respectfully urge you to please remember that God expects us to follow his teachings CAREFULLY (Ezekiel 36:26-27; Deuteronomy 4:5-6; 6:25; 8:1-2)—and with “good and honest” hearts (Luke 8:15). Jesus warned His listeners to “consider carefully HOW you listen” (Luke 8:18). We must never forget that we are dealing with the very Words of God, and distorting Paul’s more difficult teachings can result in the loss of our souls (2 Peter 3:15-18). Instead, we must remember to receive God’s Word exactly as it has been written, just as the Thessalonians did, “…not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). We must divorce from our minds any preconceived notions, including reliance on historical accounts or other circumstantial evidence to prove our conclusions. Nor is God impressed with the traditions of men, which often pervert the Truth (Matthew 15:1-9). In other words, we must rely on the Word of God to determine God’s will about the head-covering teachings of 1 Corinthians 11.

PLEASE BE SURE TO ALSO READ THE FOLLOWING (after reading this article)…

6 REASONS I Cannot Accept the Veil / Cloth-Covering Position

COMMENTARY (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)

With all that in mind, here is a brief verse-by-verse examination of the head-covering teachings. This Commentary is geared for Veil Position believers. Click here for Commentary for UNCUT HAIR believers (1 Corinthians 11:1-16).

IMPORTANT! Please read Chapter 9 in “Fact-Checking the Uncut Hair Doctrine” before reading the below!!

————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:2
————————————————
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

. . . . . . . . . . .

Plainly, the Church has traditions that we must follow. The first one that Paul notices is what could be called the “Head Covering” tradition. After this, in the latter part of 1 Corinthians 11, Paul notices what could be called the “Lord’s Supper” tradition. Both of these traditions of the Church have been perverted and abused and ignored since virtually the dawn of Christianity.

————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:3
————————————————
BUT* I want you to know that the Head (kephale) of every man is Christ, the head (kephale) of woman is man, and the Head (kephale) of Christ is God.

. . . . . . . . . . .

*Quick comment: The word “but” is interesting because it suggests Paul is contrasting what the Corinthians should have been doing (keeping the Church’s traditions) with what they were actually doing (which isn’t clearly explained). However, it sounds like they apparently weren’t following the Head Covering tradition correctly. What they were actually doing can only be assumed, but it’s common knowledge that artificial head-coverings (for women) had been an established man-made custom in their societies for at least the previous ~2000 years, and was certainly an established tradition in the first century when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (see this example of a first century Christian woman praying in the catacombs, and other first century head-covering examples in this link).

Main point: In verse 2, Paul is establishing the spiritual Headship hierarchy: God, Christ, man, and woman. Starting in verse 3, Paul proceeds to explain how that our (spiritual) Heads / head may be either honored or dishonored by how our (physical) heads are covered. In other words, how we cover (or refrain from covering) our physical heads will directly impact whether or not our prayers will be heard by God. Our (physical) head-covering (or lack there of) symbolizes our honor for our (spiritual) Heads (God and Christ), as Paul begins to explain next…

———————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:4
———————————————
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head (kephale) covered (kata), dishonors his Head (kephale).

. . . . . . . . . . .

This a very important point to make here: The word “covered” comes from the Greek “kata” which means “down from, throughout.”

Another important fact: Please notice that what a man’s head would be covered with has not yet been defined. It could be anything downward-directional: an artificial head-covering—or per vs 14-15, his “long hair.” But at this point all we know is that if he has anything “down from” from his literal head (when praying/teaching God’s Word), then he dishonors his spiritual Heads—God and Christ—making this a very serious warning.

A quick point about “prophesying”: To “prophesy” means to “speak forth the Word of God.” In the first century, the Word of God was incomplete and required miraculous prophecy to be revealed. However, although the age of miraculous prophesying has ceased (that’s because it’s no longer necessary since the Word of God is now in completed form)—we still in essence “prophesy” whenever we “speak forth the Word of God” by reading it aloud, teaching accurately from it, or preaching accurately from it. See 1 Corinthians 13:8-13; John 16:13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; etc.)

CRITICAL POINT: PLEASE CAREFULLY NOTICE that Paul (in v. 4) begins talking about the serious sin involved when a man has his literal, physical HEAD COVERED while he is praying/speaking the Word of God, and I hope to show as we go along that Paul continues to talk about talk about a man/woman having his/her HEAD COVERED when praying/prophesying to the very end of this passage, verse 16. This is the ONLY kind of Head Covering Paul talks about throughout. To be clear, he doesn’t suddenly start talking about a “second” kind of head-coverings, such as “hair coverings.”

Next, Paul addresses the Christian woman.

————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:5
————————————————
But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head (kephale) uncovered (akatakaluptos) dishonors her head (kephale), for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.

. . . . . . . . . . .

Once again, please notice that Paul is still talking about HEAD COVERINGS required when a woman prays/prophesies. Paul hasn’t switched to talking about HAIR COVERINGS or some other kind of a “second covering.”

Paul’s words are very simple:

If a woman prays or speaks the Word while her (physical) head is “uncovered” she commits a very serious sin: She dishonors her head (which is man; and, more importantly his Heads, Christ and God, Who are the Ones whose will it is that we must follow these directives).

Paul further points out that if a woman dishonors her Heads / head in this way, it is as shameful as if she had shaved her head (or sheared it, see next verse). So—just as it is now so it was back then: it was shameful for a woman to have a shaved (or sheared) head. In fact, it’s said that captive women (in Paul’s day) would be head-shaved to shame them (and possibly for other reasons as well).

By the way—and this is very important to understand—that word “uncovered” (“akatakaluptos” in the Greek) does not imply any specific type of covering. It is a generic word. The “types” of coverings that God will accept / not accept are not specifically identified until verse 15, noticed momentarily.

So, in review, here is what Paul seems to be teaching us here:

Whenever a woman prays or speaks forth God’s Word, she must first be sure that her physical head is “covered” (with something not clearly defined until verse 15).

CRITICAL POINT: Please realize that Paul has been speaking of only ONE COVERING in this passage—it is a HEAD COVERING, the one which a woman is required to wear whenever she would pray or speak forth God’s Word. It is not a HAIR covering or any other type of a covering. Paul has not departed from this context, and will never leave this context through the very end of this passage, verse 16.

————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:6
————————————————
For if a woman is not covered (katakalupto), let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered (katakalupto).

. . . . . . . . . . .

Please notice that we are still talking about Head Coverings. Paul has not changed the subject and started a new discussion about “Hair” coverings—or any other kind of a covering. Paul has not changed his context. He is basically continuing his exact thought from verses 4- 5. There we learned that if a woman’s head is shaved she would not be properly HEAD-COVERED if she prayed/taught the Word in that state. In this verse, Paul adds the state of if she were shorn; it is also shameful. This verse also necessarily implies (from verse 5) that if she prayed/taught the Word in this condition, it would not only be shameful, but would also dishonor her immediate head, man—and by logical extension, God and Christ as well).

As a result of these incredibly obvious and logical facts, Paul reveals a very obvious conclusion:

LET HER BE COVERED (instead of being in a shorn/shaven state)—whenever she would pray or speak God’s Word, that is.

As you can hopefully see, “be covered” comes from the verb katakalupto—which refers (primarily) to a generic covering. Once again, a specific type of covering hasn’t been identified to this point in Paul’s teaching! I fear that many of our Veil position brethren think that katakalupto specifically implies a cloth covering, but they are badly mistaken (as was pointed out in the Uncut Hair Commentary, see comments for verses 1 Corinthians 11:5-6). As stated, it’s not until verse 15 that Scriptural types for Head Coverings are identified—and it becomes obvious why Paul left the covering “generic.” (Had he meant a literal veil covering he could have used kalumma, or another type of cloth covering, peribolaion, which Paul in fact used in verse 15, where he said that a woman’s LONG HAIR replaces a peribolaion.) So, why did Paul use the generic word katakalupto here? It is because her Scriptural covering (when she would pray/speak the Word) could be either: (A) Her own own natural long hair, or, (B) In the absence of long hair, a Scriptural artificial head covering. More on this in a moment.

CRITICAL POINT: Once again, please realize that Paul has been speaking of only ONE COVERING in this passage. It is the HEAD COVERING that a man shouldn’t have (and the woman should have) whenever he/she would pray or speak forth God’s Word. For a man, this would both SIN AGAINST and DISHONOR God and Christ. For a woman, failing to be properly covered would also SIN AGAINST and DISHONOR God and Christ. Again, it is a HEAD COVERING not a HAIR covering or any other type of covering that Paul is speaking about. He is still in the same context, and does not leave this context until after verse 16, where he starts talking about the Lord’s Supper tradition.

————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:7
————————————————
For a man indeed ought not to cover (katakalupto) his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

. . . . . . . . . . .

CRITICAL POINT: Please notice that we are still in the same “Head Covering” context where Paul has been describing the dos and don’ts about covering/not covering a man’s/woman’s head whenever he/she would pray or speak God’s Word. Paul (still) has not changed his context. To be clear, he hasn’t started talking about “hair” coverings or any other kind of a “second” covering for women.

Instead, here Paul fills in some background information as to why a man must not cover his (physical) head (implied, when praying/teaching God’s Word). That’s because “he is the image and glory of God.” But the woman is not “the image and glory of God.” She is the glory of man.

So, the obvious necessary inference here is that the reason a woman must cover her head (when praying/speaking God’s Word) is that she is NOT “the image and glory of God.”

VERSES 8 – 12

Now, in verses 8-12, Paul proceeds to side-discuss various related thoughts to his above teachings.

HOWEVER—please again notice carefully that Paul NEVER DIGRESSES from his main discussion of a woman’s HEAD COVERING, and how vital it is that she be Scripturally head-covered whenever she prays/speaks God’s Word. He does not start talking about a “hair” covering or any other type of head-covering.

So, as we proceed into Paul’s side-discussion following in verses 8-12, please ask yourself: “Where has Paul changed his over-all topic to anything other than the same COVERING he has been discussing all along? Specifically, the type of HEAD covering a woman must have on her head whenever she prays/speaks God’s Words?” Up to this point, no “second” covering (or “Hair Covering”) has been implied or suggested.

————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:8-12
————————————————
8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her HEAD, because of the angels. (NOTE: For a better explanation of this verse, please see the Uncut Hair Commentary.)
11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.
12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

EXTREMELY CRITICAL POINT: Once again, Paul emerges from these verses having NEVER CHANGED THE CONTEXT nor having introduced ANY OTHER TYPE OF “COVERING” except the covering that a woman must have on her head whenever she prays/speaks God’s Words.” Again—UP TO THIS POINT—NO “SECOND” COVERING HAS BEEN IMPLIED OR SUGGESTED. THE CONTEXT HAS REMAINED THE SAME THROUGHOUT.

————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:13
————————————————
Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her HEAD UNCOVERED (akatakaluptos)?

. . . . . . . . . . .

Once again, he is plainly discussing exactly what he was previously. The context still has not changed. Paul essentially asks:

“Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her ‘head uncovered’?”—that is, a head not covered with a God-approved head-covering—the same divinely-approved head-covering she must have whenever she would pray/speak God’s Word. Please realize that he is not talking about a hair covering. He is still talking about a HEAD COVERING (see v. 13 above, “HEAD UNCOVERED” not “HAIR UNCOVERED”).

The answer is so embarrassingly obvious by now that one begins to wonder why Paul felt the need for all of this added emphasis. Perhaps it was because the Corinthians weren’t properly following these teachings (as implied by v. 3 above, please see comments), just like so many of us in today’s Church are not properly following these teachings.

Regardless, Paul proceeds to give an example (of why a woman shouldn’t fail to Scripturally cover her head—not hair!—when praying/speaking the Word). He does that by giving even more evidence to drive home the point of why it’s not proper for a woman to pray to God (or teach God’s Word) while her (physical) head (not hair) is uncovered:

————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:14-15
————————————————
(14) Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair (komao), it is a dishonor (disgrace) to him?
(15) But if a woman has long hair (komao), it is a glory to her; for her (long, implied) hair is given to her for a covering (peribolaion).

. . . . . . . . . . .

Remember, Paul is providing additional PROOF as why it’s IMPROPER for a woman to pray to God while her HEAD (not HAIR) is not Scripturally covered.

Therefore, he concludes his doctrinal Head Covering discussion in v. 15 by essentially saying that—although a casual observation of nature would reveal that it’s shameful for man to have long hair—by contrast, it also reveals that if a woman “has long hair,” that is her glory.

Paul concludes by implying that her long hair is not only naturally beautiful, but her long hair “has been given to her (BY GOD) “for/as/instead of” an artificial head covering.”

Said another way: GOD HAS ALREADY GIVEN (almost) ALL WOMEN OF EARTH EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO HONOR HIM IN PRAYER—WITHOUT THE NEED TO EVER WEAR AN ARTIFICIAL, MAN-MADE HEAD COVERING (which was the established societal custom of Paul’s day).

And the fact that a woman’s long hair has been given to her INSTEAD OF an artificial covering decisively invalidates the Veil Position.

Furthermore, in invalidating the Veil Position, God has effectively freed the women of all future generations from the enslaving head-covering customs (for women), one which (in the Middle East) has persisted to this day, some 2,000 years later.

So, I hope that you can clearly see that Paul never departed from his original topic of emphasizing the importance of men NOT being “downward-directionally” head-covered, and women being properly “downward-directionally” head-covered whenever praying/speaking forth God’s words.

Please understand this: In this entire passage, VERSE 15 is the ONLY verse that CLEARLY DEFINES what a woman’s valid head-covering must be (when praying/teaching the Word). The Bible clearly says that a woman’s long hair has been given to her for/as/instead of any artificial head covering. This would also imply that if she doesn’t have long hair (as her valid head-covering when praying/speaking forth God’s Word) then she would in fact be required to cover her head with a Scriptural artificial head-covering (most head-coverings we see these days worn by women in the Church are not Scriptural).

Again, Paul isn’t absurdly instructing a woman to covering her head-covering with hair. He is speaking about a woman Scripturally covering her head with long hair—which, when downward-directional—serves as her God-approved head-covering when praying to God or teaching His Word.

————————————————
1 CORINTHIANS 11:16
————————————————
But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

. . . . . . . . . . .

In my view, this verse suggests that they were having disputes about the Head Covering teachings (disputes that I believe he hinted at in verse 3).

In fact, it seems that one of Paul’s main purposes (in this writing) was to put to rest those disputes, and also ensure that women didn’t dishonor God when praying/speaking His Word by being improperly head-covered.

CONCLUSION:

As stated at the outset, misunderstandings regarding Paul’s plain teachings of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 have caused great harm to God’s people.

And at the root of these problems, many times, is the Veil Position’s “two coverings” theory that Paul in no way spoke about or authorized.

In this passage, the “head covering” is expressly mentioned 10 times, and implied 2 more times. Also a “long hair” COVERING (of the head, obviously) is directly mentioned.

But a “hair covering” for a woman’s “hair” is never mentioned or implied.

Failure to understand that Paul spoke of only one covering throughout this entire passage has resulted in UNSOUND DOCTRINE. And these misgivings—often by well-meaning, sincere, good brothers and sisters—is one which has had a long history of dividing the Church, and one which has, I believe, resulted in many good women unintentionally dishonoring God and Christ and also sinning against God and Christ each time they pray or speak God’s Word.

BUT SHOULDN’T A WOMAN’S HEAD COVERING (when praying/teaching the Word) BE “REMOVABLE“?

Finally, a quick comment about the Veil Position belief that whatever the covering is, it must be “removable.”

The “removable covering” theory is shown to be invalid because if one carefully follows the Head Covering teachings reviewed above, it should become clear that a woman’s long hair (or, in the absence of long hair, an appropriate artificial covering) must be downward-directional whenever she would pray or teach God’s Word (see again comments above on verses 4 and 5). There must be a contrast between the man and the woman (please see Chapter 9 in the “Fact-Checking the Uncut Hair Doctrine” book for a more detailed explanation of this).

The bottom line is that IF a woman’s hair (or artificial covering) is not appropriately “downward and throughout” (when praying/teaching)—then she is not properly covered in God’s sight. So, the woman’s Scriptural covering has nothing to do with whether it is “removable” or not, because not all Scriptural coverings (e.g., a woman’s long hair) are removable. Again, a woman’s physical covering does not have to be removable, but in God’s eyes both an artificial head covering or a woman’s long hair can be arranged in such a way as to not be acceptable in God’s eyes (if it is not down from and throughout,” that is). Again, see these first century examples which show, I believe, various Scriptural (and unscriptural) head coverings for women. Please note that the majority are “down from (the head) and throughout (the back)”—just as natural, mostly unbound long hair would be for a woman.

Therefore—like the “two coverings” theory—the “removable covering” theory has been introduced by man, not by God.

Again, verse 15 basically states that a woman’s long hair has been “given to her” (by God) for/as/instead of an artificial head covering (peribolaion). As indicated in Chapter 9, per Strong’s, peribolaion literally means “a wrapper; a mantle, a veil” (see link). In this context it is obviously referring to a head-covering wrapper, a head-covering mantle, and/or a head-covering veil (see link for examples). So, a woman’s LONG HAIR is her natural head covering. This is the one God gave her to be her head covering (see v. 15). And, by contrast, a peribolaion is an artificial head covering. This is the covering she must have in the absence of long hair, or long hair that’s not “downward directional.” Verse 15 teaches that God gave the woman long hair FOR (anti=”as, in the place of, instead of”) any artificial head covering (peribolaion). Plainly stated, a woman’s natural, downward-directional long hair REPLACES the need for a woman to have an artificial head covering. (Note: anti means “in the place of,” NOT “IN ADDITION TO”). In other words, one or the other is accepted by God when a woman would pray to God. Both (at the same time)—though not unscriptural—are not required. If the woman chooses to wear an artificial head-covering, I believe the inference is that she must still be covered; in this case, with an appropriately long, downward-directional artificial head covering (see this example of a first century Christian woman praying in the catacombs).

Unfortunately, because the Veil Position has wrongly assumed that verse 15 is just talking about a non-required “second covering,” and holds it to not be a “head covering” but a “hair covering”—they therefore think he isn’t talking about the same covering he spoke of earlier when describing the covering that a woman was required to have whenever she would “pray/teach the Word.” Therefore, from a Veil Position perspective, verse 15 could be reduced to mean this: “…a woman’s long hair has been given to her (by God) as a hair covering (again, peribolaion means an artificial head covering).” Speaking respectfully, this is a nonsensical statement. It’s nonsensical because a woman’s long hair does not cover her artificial head-covering; and long hair does not cover her hair; it is her hair!

I’ve said all of that in order to basically say this:

Verse 15 means exactly what it says. It means that a woman’s literal long hair is what GOD HAS GIVEN TO HER as her God-approved head-covering (implied: whenever she would pray or teach His Word to others).

PLEASE ALSO READ (highly recommended!):

6 REASONS I Cannot Accept the Veil / Cloth-Covering Position