Table of Contents

Introduction

On several occasions, I have been asked about the propriety of men wearing head coverings while teaching or praying. Some think that such practices are contrary to the instructions of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. Some also take Paul, in this same passage, to be requiring women to wear head coverings while praying and prophesying, along with condemning long hair on men. In the Q&A below, I address all three aspects. The question is specifically about male head coverings, but in order to answer it, it was necessary to also explain head coverings for women and long hair for men. I hope it is helpful for you all.

QUESTION: Is it proper for men, while teaching and praying, to wear any sort of covering on their heads?

ANSWER: Good question! First, it’s important to know that there’s actually clear scriptural support for men being able to wear head coverings while engaged in sacred tasks.

Scripture Supporting Male Head Coverings

Consider the following:

You shall take the garments, and put on Aaron the tunic, the robe of the ephod, the ephod, and the breastplate, and clothe him with the skillfully woven band of the ephod. You shall set the turban on his head, and put the holy crown on the turban.
– Exodus 29:5-6²

He set the turban on his head. He set the golden plate, the holy crown, on the front of the turban, as Yahweh commanded Moses.
– Leviticus 8:9

“But the Levitical priests, the sons of Zadok, who performed the duty of my sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from me, shall come near to me to minister to me. They shall stand before me to offer to me the fat and the blood,” says the Lord Yahweh. “They shall enter into my sanctuary, and they shall come near to my table, to minister to me, and they shall keep my instruction.
“ ‘ “It will be that when they enter in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments. No wool shall come on them while they minister in the gates of the inner court, and within. They shall have linen turbans on their heads, and shall have linen trousers on their waists. They shall not clothe themselves with anything that makes them sweat. – Ezekiel 44:15-18

Plainly, the priests were commanded to wear turbans on their heads while engaged in priestly service. God wouldn’t command them to do this if the act were somehow inherently disgraceful. From Ezekiel 44, we can learn that a positive view of men wearing head coverings isn’t restricted to the past since Ezekiel spoke of a temple and priesthood not yet in existence.

Next, let’s go beyond priests and consider testimony regarding other men of God wearing head coverings, even while praying.

When Elijah sought God in the mountains, a devouring fire swept by; but God was not in the flame. A tempest rose, the thunder rolled, and the lightnings flashed; but God was not in all this. Then there came a still, small voice, and the prophet covered his head before the presence of the Lord. – Gospel Workers, p. 266.

David went up by the ascent of the Mount of Olives, and wept as he went up; and he had his head covered and went barefoot. All the people who were with him each covered his head, and they went up, weeping as they went up.
– 2 Samuel 15:30

Our heavenly Father is never unmindful of those whom sorrow has touched. When David went up the Mount Olivet, “and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot” (2 Samuel 15:30), the Lord was looking pityingly upon him. David was clothed in sackcloth, and his conscience was scourging him. The outward signs of humiliation testified of his contrition. In tearful, heartbroken utterances he presented his case to God, and the Lord did not forsake His servant. Never was David dearer to the heart of Infinite Love than when, conscience-smitten, he fled for his life from his enemies, who had been stirred to rebellion by his own son. The Lord says, “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.” Revelation 3:19. Christ lifts up the contrite heart and refines the mourning soul until it becomes His abode. – Thoughts From the Mount of Blessings, p. 11

I was instructed by the case of David who had through his own course of action forfeited the favor of God, and like a funeral procession the uncrowned and unsandaled king, with head covered and eyes dim with tears, with his little handful of adherents, was pursuing his way along the precipitous road by the Mount of Olives. Yet God had His eye upon him every moment. His own course of action had brought the sure result. He had lost his self-respect and self-control. The man was humbled and mournful, but in his humiliation David, before the whole universe of heaven, was never more tenderly regarded than in this hour of his adversity. Never does he stand greater with God than when wrestling with the storm. He was cut to the quick with the change that had taken place, suspicioned, and not only [had] to bear that of which he was guilty, but much more of the sayings and imputations of those who were ready to say, Report and we will report it. – Letter 61, 1890, par. 3

We are also admonished to, at times, come before God with heads covered. Ellen White wrote the following to a man referred to as “Brother Church”:

Let those who suppose that they have penetrating minds seek to realize as they open the Word of God that they are in the presence of the Majesty of heaven; let them cover their heads before God, and bow their knees in admiration and awe; and with the docility of a little child, let their will be brought into entire submission to the will of God, and let them then come to the searching of the Scriptures. Let those who would know the truth realize that Christ is by their side. Let them come with a willingness to have their ideas corrected by the word of prophecy. Come with a determination to yield anything and everything that cannot be substantiated by the Holy Oracles. – Letter 8a, 1890, par. 28

Now, all of this is positive testimony to the propriety of men wearing head coverings. There is, though, one passage in scripture which has been used to counteract that idea.

1 Corinthians 11 on Male Head Coverings

The one passage in scripture that appears to oppose male head coverings is 1 Corinthians 11:4, which says, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.” There are several questions that must be asked about this passage in light of all the other scriptures we have seen. Does this passage undo or discredit all the other passages that seem to paint the opposite picture? Are not the writings of Paul to be tested against the prophets before him rather than vice versa? Would conforming one’s actions and beliefs to the seemingly obvious meaning of this verse (as against the at least equally obvious meaning of the other verses) not be a violation of the principle to go with the weight of evidence?

There are some today who would reject the present message because it condones the wearing of head coverings by males, which they take to be in contradiction to the instructions given through a past prophet (Paul). Yet, they do not realize that if they were to operate by that same principle and interpret Paul as they do, they would have rejected him if they were around in his day because of his apparent contradiction to the example and instruction of the prophets before him on this very point.

One might think that they can avoid the apparent discrepancy between this statement in 1 Corinthians and the passages in Exodus, Leviticus, and Ezekiel by pointing out that 1 Corinthians specifies the restriction on male head coverings to be only while praying or prophesying. Interestingly, though, all of the examples we have of the men of God covering their heads are while praying or prophesying or engaging in other sacred duties. David and Elijah were both praying, and the priests both prayed and, in a sense, prophesied by enacting the types of the sanctuary service. To give a more specific example — no one acquainted with the truth for our time denies that the rituals on the Day of Atonement were prophetic of the final cleansing of the heavenly temple and of God’s people. Yet, the high priest was specifically commanded to have his head covered while performing those prophetic types, which included confessing the iniquities of the children of Israel over the head of the live goat – an act which most would consider to be a form of “praying.”

He shall put on the holy linen tunic. He shall have the linen trousers on his body, and shall put on the linen sash, and he shall be clothed with the linen turban. They are the holy garments. He shall bathe his body in water, and put them on.
…
Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them on the head of the goat, and shall send him away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is ready.
– Leviticus 16:4, 21

So, Exodus, Leviticus, Ezekiel, and the examples of David and Elijah all clearly condone, and even sometimes demand, the wearing of head-coverings by males while praying and prophesying, at least on certain occasions.

While we could just leave the matter at this and encourage people to go with the weight of evidence, we feel that the statement in 1 Corinthians requires a fuller explanation, especially since we believe Paul was an inspired messenger.

At this point, it is worth reminding ourselves of a certain undeniable fact; namely, that there are certain things in Paul’s letters which are hard to understand.

Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you, as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those, there are some things that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. – 2 Peter 3:15-16

Perhaps the most common way to misconstrue the letters of Paul is to take them as speaking against the teachings of the other scriptures. This is done both by those who want to disregard the law of God and uphold their interpretation of Paul’s letters in its place, and also by those who reject the inspiration of Paul, asserting that he contradicted the teachings of Moses, the prophets, and even of Jesus. Since the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 that takes Paul to be speaking against male head coverings is an instance of interpreting Paul against other scriptures, we ought to be all the more diligent to question whether that interpretation is correct.

To be clear, we do not assert that the words, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head” (1 Cor. 11:4) mean anything other than what they appear to say. We do, however, believe that they are not an expression of Paul’s own teachings. Among all the letters of Paul, 1 Corinthians is perhaps the most difficult to understand. One reason for this is that 1 Corinthians is a reply to a letter from people at Corinth (1 Cor. 7:1) — a letter we do not have. Since we do not have the letter, we are unaware of all the issues going on among the believers in Corinth at the time. Our situation is, in that sense, not that different from one trying to understand a phone conversation while only hearing one side. Yet, it isn’t exactly the same since we do occasionally get snippets of what certain Corinthian believers were saying.

Snippets of Corinthian Voices

From time to time throughout the letter, Paul refers to the statements and understandings of the people he’s replying to and then responds to their teachings. For example,

Now concerning the things about which you wrote to me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But, because of sexual immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.
– 1 Corinthians 7:1-2

The fact that the phrase, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman,” occurs in this letter of Paul does not mean it represents his own view. Since he begins his response with the word here translated “But,” he evidently didn’t wholly agree with the idea being expressed.

More places in 1 Corinthians that scholars have identified as references to, or quotations from, things certain Corinthian believers said include the following (the words assigned to Corinthian believers are in quotes):³

1 Corinthians 1:12 – Now I mean this, that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Cephas,” and, “I follow Christ.”

1 Corinthians 6:12 – “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are expedient. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be brought under the power of anything.

1 Corinthians 6:13 – “Foods for the belly, and the belly for foods,” but God will bring to nothing both it and them. But the body is not for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

1 Corinthians 10:23 – “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are profitable. “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things build up.

This formula of quote-response can be found throughout 1 Corinthians. In the case where a thesis is stated, then immediately followed by a responding antithesis, it stands to reason that the thesis is the view of someone else and that the antithesis is Paul’s response. Most relevant for our purposes here is the fact that this formula is evident in 1 Corinthians 11.

1 Corinthians 11 Contains a Corinthian View and Paul’s Response

In 1 Corinthians 11:5, we find the statement, “every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head.” Later in this same letter, we find the statement that “women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own men at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).⁴ One might reasonably ask, “Which is it? Are women not permitted to speak in the church, or are they permitted to speak so long as they wear a head covering?” What is evident is that it would be entirely self-contradictory for Paul to be promoting both ideas. The more reasonable conclusion is that, in at least one of these passages, Paul is replying to the ideas of others. We believe that the evidence heavily weighs toward the conclusion that Paul is replying to the thoughts of others in both passages. For evidence that this is the case in 1 Corinthians 14, please see our article God Ordains Women, pp. 23-35.

As for 1 Corinthians 11, there are several indications that this passage includes the ideas of others, followed by a response from Paul. Starting in verse 3, we find the beginning of a thesis, followed by an antithesis starting in verse 11.

Thesis

3 But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head. For it is one and the same thing as if she were shaved. 6 For if a woman is not covered, let her hair also be cut off. But if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut off or be shaved, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man; 9 for man wasn’t created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this cause the woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels.
– 1 Corinthians 11:3-10

Antithesis

11 Nevertheless, neither is the woman independent of the man, nor the man independent of the woman, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, so a man also comes through a woman; but all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves. Is it appropriate that a woman pray to God unveiled? 14 Doesn’t even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither do God’s assemblies.
– 1 Corinthians 11:11-16

This formula itself, marked by the transition “Nevertheless,” is strong evidence that the section from verses 3-10 does not represent the teaching of Paul. Added to this is the fact that that section contains elements which contradict the “Old Testament” scriptures and which are immediately contradicted by Paul in verses 11-16.

The first contradiction between the passage from verses 3-10 and the Hebrew scriptures is the teaching against males wearing head coverings in verse 4. We’ve already seen the passages that this contradicts. Verses 5-6 teach that women are not to pray to God without having their heads covered. While I don’t know of any pre-Pauline scripture which commands women to pray uncovered, and in that sense those verses do not directly contradict prior scripture, there is also nothing in prior scripture which hints at the idea that women should have their heads covered. I doubt any would think that Eve had to pray to God with her head covered in the garden of Eden, especially since Genesis says they were naked (Gen. 3:7). From the perspective of the Hebrew scriptures, there doesn’t seem to be inherent shame in a woman praying with her head uncovered. It evidently wasn’t important enough for God to bring up from the earliest God-given instructions until the time of Paul, for we have no record of such an instruction during that time. Moreover, Paul didn’t teach that such a thing is necessary, either, as we are in the process of seeing. Matters become even more apparent when we consider the idea set forth in verses 7-9. To quote those verses again:

7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man; 9 for man wasn’t created for the woman, but woman for the man.
– 1 Corinthians 11:7-9

Notice that these verses argue that men are not to cover their heads (and women are to cover their heads – vss. 5-6) because men are the image and glory of God, while women (in contrast with men) are evidently not — they are only the glory of the man. This argument is bolstered by emphasizing that men came first and that thus women were made for men, not the other way around. Not only does this passage directly contradict Genesis, but it is also immediately contradicted by Paul. First, consider the account of the creation of humanity in Genesis 1:

God said, “Let’s make mankind in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created mankind in his own image. In God’s image he created them; male and female he created them.
– Genesis 1:26-27⁵

This declares not that men alone were made in the image of God, but that both men and women were made in God’s image. Moreover, from the perspective of Genesis 1, women were not made for men; they were made to be representatives of God in the world and to have dominion over the earth and everything in it, just as were men. They were made equal, not one being lower than the other. This is essentially the thrust of Paul’s reasoning at the beginning of his response. He said,

Nevertheless, neither is the woman independent of the man, nor the man independent of the woman, in the Lord.
– 1 Corinthians 11:11

Paul here argues that even though it is true, in a sense, that women came from men (as described in Genesis 2), it is equally true that men come from women, and we are thus dependent on each other. Further, he argues that it doesn’t really matter who came from who anyway, since we all come from God.

The next few verses suffer badly from mistranslation. The way it stands in most traditional translations is something like this:

13 Judge for yourselves. Is it appropriate that a woman pray to God unveiled? 14 Doesn’t even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? 15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering.
– 1 Corinthians 11:13-15

The reasoning in this translation appears quite odd. The way the sentences are structured makes it appear that the answer to the first question is supposed to be, “No.” But is there anything in nature or in scripture that would lead one to believe that it is not proper for women to pray to God with their heads uncovered? Also odd is the idea that Paul would actually ask this question to people who are in need of convincing that it is not proper for women to pray uncovered. In other words, if he is having to convince them, it doesn’t seem they would naturally answer, “No.” Odder still is the second question of this translation. What in nature teaches that it is a shame for men to have long hair? Certainly not lions and horses, or the males of other sorts of animals. The nature of humanity also doesn’t teach this since men’s hair naturally grows just as long as women’s hair. Many cultures, including Chinese, Native American, Corinthian, and even Jewish, actually considered long hair on males to be an honor. Here are some passages of scripture that speak positively of long hair on males:

Scripture Supporting Long Hair on Men

“ ‘All the days of his vow of separation no razor shall come on his head, until the days are fulfilled in which he separates himself to Yahweh. He shall be holy. He shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long.
“ ‘All the days that he separates himself to Yahweh he shall not go near a dead body. He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die, because his separation to God is on his head. All the days of his separation he is holy to Yahweh.
“ ‘If any man dies very suddenly beside him, and he defiles the head of his separation, then he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing. On the seventh day he shall shave it.
…
The Nazirite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the Tent of Meeting, take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of peace offerings.
– Numbers 6:5-9, 18

…behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son. No razor shall come on his head, for the child shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb. He shall begin to save Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.”
– Judges 13:5

He told her all his heart and said to her, “No razor has ever come on my head; for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother’s womb. If I am shaved, then my strength will go from me and I will become weak, and be like any other man.”
– Judges 16:17

She vowed a vow, and said, “Yahweh of Armies, if you will indeed look at the affliction of your servant and remember me, and not forget your servant, but will give to your servant a boy, then I will give him to Yahweh all the days of his life, and no razor shall come on his head.”
– 1 Samuel 1:11

Now in all Israel there was no one to be so much praised as Absalom for his beauty. From the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no defect in him. When he cut the hair of his head (now it was at every year’s end that he cut it; because it was heavy on him, therefore he cut it), he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels,⁶ after the king’s weight.
– 2 Samuel 14:25-26

Absalom had long hair and was considered without defect “from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head.” Samuel and Samson were life-long Nazirites, and so must have had very long hair. According to Numbers, Nazirites were the only non-priests who were given the privilege of directly interacting with the altar of burnt offering. What they were permitted to do was to put their hair on the altar, signifying that it was acceptable in the eyes of the Lord. The head of the Nazirite, with its long hair, was considered consecrated to God. Surely, Paul was familiar with these scriptures. In fact, we know he was, for he himself took a Nazirite vow and thus had long hair, at least for a time.

Paul, having stayed after this many more days, took his leave of the brothers, and sailed from there for Syria, together with Priscilla and Aquila. He shaved his head in Cenchreae, for he had a vow. – Acts 18:18

The only scriptural vow that involves shaving one’s head is the Nazirite vow. That vow requires the individual to grow their hair long, only cutting it at the end of their vow. Paul’s participation in this vow, along with the other scriptures in favor of long hair on men, makes it highly unlikely that he would ever say something like, “Does not nature itself teach you that it is a shame for a man to have long hair?” The fact is, nature does not teach any such thing, nor does scripture, and neither did Paul. This all goes to show that there is something wrong with how these verses in 1 Corinthians 11 have commonly been translated and understood.

So, what is Paul really saying here? Well, one of the most important things to realize is that the decision to translate verses 13-14 as questions is not something that has been determined by the Greek text. It is not that it is grammatically impossible to translate them as questions, but that is not the only option, nor is it the most likely. Some scholars, such as Katherine Bushnell⁷ and William P. Welty,⁸ have argued that the verses are better read as statements. The following translation reflects that understanding:

Nevertheless, neither is the woman independent of the man, nor the man independent of the woman, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, so a man also comes through a woman; but all things are from God; judge for yourselves. It is appropriate that a woman pray to God unveiled. And nature itself doesn’t teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, while if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither do God’s assemblies.
– 1 Corinthians 11:11-16⁹

This translation is more internally consistent, more logical in its flow, and makes better sense of Paul’s teaching and practice in the light of other things known about him, including his attitude toward the scriptures that came before him and his own length of hair, at least during his Nazirite vow.

While the question addressed in this article was only about male head coverings, answering it necessarily involved answering questions about head coverings for women and long hair on men, since they are all part of the same discussion in 1 Corinthians 11. In light of all the above information, we hope you can see that Paul simply wasn’t against (1) men wearing head coverings while praying and/or prophesying, (2) women not wearing head coverings while praying and/or prophesying, and (3) men having long hair. Long hair on men and male head coverings both have an overwhelming and positive scriptural basis, though neither are commanded for all men in all circumstances. There is likewise no command for women to either wear, or to not wear, head coverings. Paul addressed the idea, but ultimately said, “we have no such custom.”

Regardless of how different the information in this article may be from how you may have understood these subjects in the past, we ask that you consider the weight of evidence and be willing to follow the truth, judging all things according to reality rather than by our preconceptions.

More by Trent Wilde

Footnotes

1
This was originally published in March 2017 and was revised in September 2026. ↩︎
2
All quotations of scriptural texts are from the World English Bible unless otherwise indicated. ↩︎
3
These examples are widely acknowledged — so much so that some modern translations include the Corinthian voices in quotation marks. Beyond these examples, many others have been suggested. For a sample of more, see Acknowledging Paul’s Quotations by Roger L. Omanson in Practical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol. 43, No. 2, April 1992. ↩︎
4
The translation used here is the Berean Standard Bible with one modification. The BSB rendered the Greek word ἄνδρας as “husbands,” but we have rendered it “men” since the Greek word doesn’t mean “married men” but simply “men.” Our reason for using the BSB here rather than the WEB (which is what we’ve used for the other passages in this article) is that the WEB uses “wives” here rather than “women,” while the Greek word simply means “women.” ↩︎
5
I’ve modified the World English Bible here in two ways. First, in two places within these verses, the WEB rendered אדם (adám) as “man,” but I’ve rendered it here as “mankind” since the word refers to humans collectively, not to a single man. Second, the WEB reads, “In God’s image he created him,” but I have rendered it “In God’s image he created them.” The pronoun is singular, but it is normal practice for translations to render the singular pronoun as a plural in English when referring to a collective entity. This is justified by the fact that English uses the plural pronoun in generic cases, while Hebrew uses the singular pronoun in generic cases. In other words, rendering the Hebrew pronoun as “them” in this and similar cases is simply translating one language’s generic pronoun with another language’s generic pronoun. ↩︎
6
Estimates of the weight vary quite a bit, anywhere from 2-5 pounds or thereabouts. In any case, that’s a lot of hair — at least several feet long, even with very thick, dense hair. ↩︎
7
Her book God’s Word to Women covers this passage along with many others that are typically viewed as subordinating women to men. Her translation of 1 Corinthians 11 can be found in Lesson 33. ↩︎
8
See his article Rethinking the Veil: Another Approach to 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. As of the 2026 revision of the present article, Welty’s article appears to no longer be available online. If you are aware of an online version of this article to which we could provide a link, we would greatly appreciate it if you could send it to us using our Contact Us page. ↩︎
9
This is modified from the WEB to read more along the lines of the translations offered by Bushnell and Welty. ↩︎