THE HAT QUESTION
By J. Edward Nowlin
God’s law may be disobeyed by addition to it, subtraction from it, substitution of something else for it, or by rebelliously refusing to make any effort to do it. It is always commendable on the part of Christians to be zealous in learning and doing the divine will. Too often, however, great zeal is exhibited by those who do not have a clear understanding of what God wishes done, and they unwittingly serve the purposes of Satan by promoting strife among brethren because of that misunderstanding. Thus, the church of the Lord is despised by the world for its ignorance and the work of reaching sinners with the gospel of Christ grinds to a heartbreaking halt, while members of the church backbite, measure, anathematize and cast each other out over a question which should never have been raised.
Such havoc has been wrought in the church at various places by a variety of issues, all because some sincere brother or sister lacked understanding, while zealously trying to lead others in the way which seemed right. The “hat question” is only one of these issues. Controversy usually revolves around Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, especially 1 Cor. 11:1-16. In the following pages we propose to examine this matter. We do not claim perfection in knowledge; but we do claim sincerity in purpose, and hope to be able to increase the true understanding of God’s will rather than to add to the confusion which already exists on the subject.
A Veil Was Customary
If a Christian woman must wear an artificial covering on her head in the presence of men when she worships God, in the United States of America, today, she must wear a veil. The usual substitute, a hat, will not suffice. That this is true is confirmed by various translations of the text, 1 Cor. 11:4-6.
King James Version: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn; but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
American Standard Revised Version: “Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.”
Revised Standard Version: “Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head -- it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair: but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil.”
There is no point in multiplying quotations from other translations. The above are sufficient to show that the veil was the artificial covering under discussion, and it is dodging the issue for anyone to say that a “covering” was required and that a hat is one kind of covering; therefore, sufficient. If “covering” is used here generically, any choice of specifics is ruled out by the specific requirement: “let her wear a veil.” The veil was the proper head covering.
The words “covered” and “veil” are translated from the Greek, in which the New Testament was written, as follows: “kata --…I. With the Genitive … 1. prop. a. down from, down: … hence, kata kefalein (a veil hanging down from his head) ekown, 1 Cor. xi. 4.” “kalumma, tos, to, (kalupto), a veil, a covering: 2 Cor. iii. 13 (Ex. xxxiv. 33); kalumma, or its equiv. is suggested to the reader by the context in 1 Cor. xi. 4.” “kata-kalupto … to cover up … to veil or cover one’s self: 1 Cor. xi. 6.” These definitions taken from Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament show that the head covering of Bible times was a veil hanging down from the head.
Symbolism of the Veil
Why was the veil worn? It was worn because it was the customary symbol of subordination for women in Bible times. Note the following:
Chardin says: “The headdress of the women is simple: their hair is drawn behind the head, and divided into several tresses; the beauty of this headdress consists in the thickness and length of these tresses, which should fall even down to the heels, in default of which they lengthen them with tresses of silk. The ends of these tresses they decorate with pearls and jewels, or ornaments of gold or silver. The head is covered, under the veil or kerchief (course chef) only by the end of a small bandeau, shaped into a triangle; this bandeau, which is of various colours, is thin and light. The bandalette is embroidered by the needle, or covered with jewellery, according to the quality of the wearer. This is, in my opinion, the ancient tiara, or diadem, of the queens of Persia; only married women wear it; and it is the mark by which it is known that they are under subjection … power.” (Quoted from Barnes’ Commentary on 1 Cor. 11.)
Thevenot says: “The wearing of a veil by a married woman was a token of her being under power. The Hebrew name of the veil signifies dependence. Great importance was attached to this part of the dress in the East. All the women of Persia are pleasantly apparelled. When they are abroad in the streets, all, both rich and poor, are covered with a great veil, or sheet of very fine white cloth, of which one half, like a forehead cloth, comes down to the eyes, and, going over the head, reaches down to the heels; and the other half muffles up the face below the eyes, and being fastened with a pin to the left side of the head, falls down to their very shoes, even covering their hands, with which they hold that cloth by the two sides, so that, except the eyes, they are covered all over with it. Within doors they have their faces and breasts uncovered; but the Armenian women in their houses have always one half of their faces covered with a cloth, that goes athwart their noses, and hangs over their chin and breasts, except the maids of that nation, who, within doors, cover only the chin until they are married.” (Ibid.)
In Manners and Customs of Bible Lands by Fred H. Wright, Moody Press, Chicago, Ill., 1953, $4.00, pp. 98-100, Mr. Wright says: “The veil was the distinctive female wearing apparel. All females, with the exception of maidservants and women in low condition of life, wore a veil. They would usually never lay it aside, except when they were in the presence of servants, or on rare occasions. This custom has prevailed among the Eastern women down to the modern era. When traveling, women may throw the veil over the back part of their head, but if they see a man approaching, they place it back in its original position. Thus Rebekah, when she saw Isaac approaching her camel caravan, covered her face with her veil. (Gen. 24:64, 65.) When women are at home they do not speak to a guest without being veiled and in the presence of maids. They do not enter the guest’s chamber, but rather, standing at the door, they make it known to the servant what is wanted. (See 2 Kings 4:12, 13.) It is well to remember that prostitutes went unveiled. Today, as in olden times, virgins and married women may be seen wearing veils in Bible lands. The old customs are not being observed strictly by some Moslem women, for they are now going unveiled.
“Although it was the custom for women to wear a veil entirely covering their head, when they were in public, this custom was not always strictly enforced among the Hebrew women. They were allowed more liberty than the Arab women are allowed today. The Egyptians saw Sarah’s face. (Gen. 12:14.) While Hannah was praying, Eli ‘marked her mouth.’ (1 Sam. 1:12.) When a woman kept her veil down, it was forbidden for anyone to lift it, but she was free to do so if she chose. Jesus said, ‘Every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already with her in his heart.’ (Matt. 5:28.) All these Scriptures indicate that women sometimes exposed their faces to view. Young girls were more apt to be veiled than married women.
“The headgear of Bethlehem women is of interest in throwing light on Biblical customs. It was of two parts. First, there was what might be called a high cap on the front of which have been sewn rows of gold and silver coins. It would have to be a dire circumstance that would ever cause her to part with any of these coins. If she lost one of these, an evil meaning would be attached to the loss, and so it would be considered a great shame. Thus the woman whom Jesus told us about (Lk. 15:8-10) had not merely lost a coin that could be used for buying articles, she had lost a part of that which was an ornament to her and which was also her dowry. Reflection was cast upon her character. Second, there was the veil, which was quite a large affair perhaps six feet long and some four feet wide, and so placed over the cap as to cover the entire headgear, with the exception of the coins. Most of these veils are made of heavy white linen. Some have embroidery work on them, and some are nearly covered with needlework.”
The McGarvey and Pendleton Commentary, Standard Pub. Co., Cincinnati, 1916, p. 113, says: “Paul is here discussing how men and women should be attired when they take a leading part in public worship. He will speak later as to whether or not women should take any such part at all in public worship. (ch. 14:34, 35; 1 Tim. 2:12.) We today as males worship with uncovered heads in consequence of Paul’s instructions; but not for his reasons. It is now an expression of reverence, which the Jew then expressed by taking off his sandals. ‘Holland,’ says Stanley, ‘is the only exception. In Dutch congregations, men uncover their heads during the psalmody only.’ The problem in Western assemblies is how best to persuade women to take their hats off, not how to prevail upon them to keep them on. The principle, however, still holds good that the woman is subordinate to the man, and should not make any unseemly, immodest, vaunting display of an independence which she does not possess.”
Barnes’ Notes on First Corinthians, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1848, p. 226, says: “We have no such custom. We the apostles in the churches which we have elsewhere founded; or we have no such custom in Judea. The sense is, that it is contrary to custom there for women to appear in public unveiled.”
By the above testimony we have intended to show one thing: namely, that the veil was the customary artificial head covering of women in the presence of men in Bible times. Let no superficial reader suppose that we would seek to prove the right or wrong of a practice by the testimony of men. We shall go to the Bible for that.
Bible Customs and the Gospel of Christ
Many people fail to realize that the Bible was written by those who lived in a society where the customs of the people were vastly different from ours. For instance:
1. American men feel obligated to carry burdens for their wives. Not so with the men of Bible times. Moses was an exception when he fought the shepherds away from the watering troughs and helped the seven daughters of Jethro water their flocks. In his Lands of the Bible, McGarvey tells of seeing men riding on donkeys, while their wives and daughters walked with heavy burdens on the way to market. He said he never let such pass him without giving the man a tongue-lashing in English, which if he had understood would have warmed him up.
2. Feet washing was a social custom in Bible times. When a visitor came into the home, it was considered the courteous duty of the host to supply water to wash his feet. See Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; Ex. 30:19, 20; Judg. 19:21; 1 Sam. 25:41; Lk. 7:38, 44; John 13:5-14; 1 Tim. 5:10. We have no such custom today in our country.
3. The customary salutation among the Jews of Bible times was the kiss. See Gen. 27:27; 29:11, 13; 31:55; 33:4; 45:15; 48:10; 50:1; Lk. 7:38; 15:20; Acts 20:37, and many other passages. Judas made use of this custom in betraying Jesus, and Paul commanded that it be a holy kiss among Christians. (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26.) Instead of this, we greet each other with a handshake in this country.
4. The customary style for women’s hair in Bible times was to wear it as long as it would grow. The men cropped or bobbed their hair, except when under the Nazarite vow (Num. 6; Judg. 13), or for some other reason as in the case of Absalom. This custom prevailed in Europe and came to America with the early colonists, but only a few religious cranks or showmen follow it today in this country. There has never been any symbolism attached to long or short hair; except where women cut their hair off to indicate mourning or had it cut off for harlotry. The length of the hair is certainly not symbolic of authority or lack of it. It has served to distinguish between the sexes, generally; and still does, just as in style of clothing.
5. The customary artificial covering of the head of women in Bible times was the veil, and it was symbolic of her subordination to man, according to their customs, as we have already shown. Such is not the case in the United States of America, today, and never has been.
The subject of this passage is not hats, hair or veils, or the lack of them. The theme of the passage is Authority. Who is the head of whom? Who is subordinate to whom? That is the question under consideration, and it was evidently brought up by the insubordinate behavior of some inspired women at Corinth. The heathen priestesses laid aside their veils and disheveled their hair when conducting their religious ritual and pretending to be under the influence of supernatural power. Many of these Corinthian women had been converted from heathenism and nothing would be more likely for those who received the gift of prophecy than that they would imitate the pagan priestesses when speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Surely nobody would contend that being inspired to speak would guarantee the proper behavior on the part of the inspired person. If so, see the case of Peter. (Gal. 2:11.)
From 1 Cor. 7:1, it seems that the Corinthian brethren had written Paul about several matters. Now note how he deals with the problem of insubordination in chapter 11:
Verse 3: The head of the man is Christ, the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God. Note the order: man over woman, Christ over man, God over Christ. What does this teach? It simply teaches the divine order of authority and subordination which was being violated at Corinth.
Verse 4: If a man prays or prophesies with his head covered, he dishonors his head, Christ. According to their customs, he would appear womanish as though he were subordinate to man, as woman is, instead of to Christ.
Verse 7: The man ought not to cover his head because he is the image and glory of God, not of the woman; but the woman is the glory of, or an honor to, the man, because (verses 8, 9) she was made of the man and created for the man.
Verse 5: If a woman prays or prophesies with her head unveiled, like the man, she dishonors her head, man; because, according to their customs she would appear mannish as though she were directly subordinate to Christ, instead of being subject to man. In that case she may as well cut her hair off like the man and assume the identity of the opposite sex. There would be no difference in so doing. NOTE: The prophesying referred to here was done by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Greek word translated “prophesying” here comes from “propheteuo,” and according to Thayer means: “d. to break forth under sudden impulse in lofty discourse or in praise of the divine counsels: Lk.i. 67; Acts xix. 6, (1 S. x. 10, 11; xix. 20, 21, etc.); --or, under the like prompting, to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, comfort others, … 1 Co. xi. 4, 5; xiii. 9; xiv. 1, 3, 4, 5, 24, 31, 39.” We have no such prophetesses today. Here, Paul does not deal with the propriety of a prophetess’ speaking in the public assembly of the church. There is no conclusive evidence that he was considering her speaking in an assembly of the church in this passage. If so, he would no doubt have forbidden her to speak at all, as he did in chapter 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:11, 12. Since Paul forbids her in 14:34, if he approves her speaking here he contradicts himself!
Verse 6: If a woman did not wear her veil in the presence of men, she might as well have her hair cut, also; but if it were shameful (in the sight of men) for a woman to have her hair cut off (which is her natural covering to indicate sex), she should wear her veil (which is her artificial covering to indicate subordination to man). The “shame” considered by Paul here has to do with the result of doing that which would bring reproach from men. The word comes from the Greek “aischros,” which means “base, dishonorable: 1 Co. xi. 6; xiv. 35; Eph. v. 12; Tit. i. 11.” Webster says shame is, “A painful sensation excited by a consciousness of guilt, or of having done something which injures reputation . . . Shame is particularly excited by the disclosure of actions which, in view of men, are mean and degrading.”
This is an important point in this discussion. The shame would stem from violation of the customs of their society, which would bring reproach from men, not from God. God does not look upon the outward appearance of the worshipper. He looks on the heart. (1 Sam. 16:7.) Hence, Paul says, “If it is a shame,” not meaning to cast doubt, but according to their customs, it was a shame in the sight of men for a woman to have her hair cut off. He might have said, “Since it is a shame” for her to be shorn, it is likewise a shame for her to appear in the presence of men without her veil; therefore, let her wear her veil, as well as her long hair.
Verse 8, 9: The woman is subject to the man because she was made of the man (Gen. 2:20-23) and was created for the man. To Timothy, Paul adds two other reasons for woman’s subjection to man, namely: (1) She was made last. (2) And, she was deceived in the transgression in Eden. (1 Tim. 2:13, 14.)
Verse 10: Since the woman is subject to the man, she ought to wear her veil, which was a sign among them of her subordination to man. If she does not, she is guilty of insubordination, which is the same sin committed by the fallen angels. (See 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6.) They were subordinate creatures, also; but they left their assigned habitation and were guilty of insubordination. For this God cast them down to Tartarus, and they are held there until judgment day. By implication, Paul warns, the same fate might befall the women who violated the customs of that day so as to bring reproach upon their husbands, upon themselves and upon the church by appearing in public without their veils.
Verse 11: Although the woman is by purpose and by creation subordinate to the man, yet neither is self-sufficient, because the Lord so willed it.
Verse 12: Even though the woman was made from the man in the beginning, the man comes into existence by the woman, is born of her, for God arranged it thus. He has authority over both of them.
Verse 13: Now, Paul calls upon the brethren at Corinth to decide in the matter. In view of the prevailing customs, is it fitting that a woman lay aside her veil?
Verses 14, 15: Does not nature teach you that it is shameful for a man to have long hair and an honor for a woman to have long hair? The Greek work “phusis” here which is translated “nature” does not mean an inborn power in this passage. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines it as “the native sense of propriety.” Robinson’s Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament says, “Spec. a natural feeling of decorum, a native sense of propriety, e.g. in respect to national customs in which one is born and brought up; 1 Cor. 11:14 . . . doth not your own natural feeling teach you? It was the national custom among both Hebrews and Greeks, for men to wear the hair short and women to wear it long. Among the Hebrews, comp. The law of the Nazarite Num. 6:1 sq.; Judg. 13:5; 1 Sam. 1:11; genr. Ez. 44:20; for women, Is. 3:24; Judith 10:3; Luke 7:38. For the Greek custom, see espec. Plut. Quaest. Rom. 14 Hdot. 1. 82. Phocylid. 199 sq. Dict. of Antt. art. Coma.” From this it can be seen that Paul is not saying that a woman has an inborn power to grow longer hair than a man. We doubt that she does! However, that question does not enter into this discussion. “Nature” here means “custom”; not inborn power.
Verse 16: If any man wishes to deny that a woman should wear her veil, no such custom prevails outside the church nor in it. Thus Paul concludes his effort to get the Corinthian prophetesses to see the propriety of wearing their veils.
The Case of the Prophetesses
1. They were enabled by the Holy Spirit to prophesy. (Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:17; 1 Cor. 12:10; Acts 21:8, 9.)
We respectfully submit to you that the above limitations cannot apply to Christian women in the United States of America today, because:
1. We have no inspired prophetesses today. (1 Cor. 13:8)
2. If we did have any such, they would not be allowed to speak in the public assembly of the church. (1 Cor. 14:34, 35.)
3. Women are just as subordinate to men as ever, and for the same reasons which the New Testament states: but we have no form of artificial head covering for women which is symbolic of their subordination to man in our society today. The most honorable thing a wife can do among us is to take her husband’s family name upon her. This is customary.
4. It is folly to require our women to qualify (by wearing a hat) for doing something (praying and prophesying) in the public assembly, which they are not allowed to do anyway!
5. It is a misapplication of Scripture to bind upon women, only in the public services of the church that which was customarily binding upon Bible women in all public appearances.
6. It is a misapplication of Scripture to bind upon all women that which applied only to prophetesses in Bible times.
7. The hat is an unscriptural substitute for the women’s veil of Bible times, and the doctrine which binds the wearing of hats in public worship by women in our country today is based upon no higher authority than the commandments of men. (Matt. 15:13.)
8. Furthermore, those who bind the Eastern custom of head covering upon Christian women in our country today, are duty bound (if they would be consistent) to accept the other customs of the East in their entirety: including, slavish burdens for the women, long hair for the women, the kiss of salutation and the washing of the feet of visitors in the home. What gullible soul in the church of Christ is ready for this?
Let us plead for a prayerful study of this question and for acceptance of the truth upon it so that customs may not be confused with Christianity, causing strife in the Lord’s church and the loss of souls within and without.