Introduction
The idea of head coverings, long hair/short hair, etc. was a cultural example of identity in first-century Corinth. It was not meant to be interpreted as an edict for the entirety of the church throughout human history. Yes, Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16 that, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." This does not mean all Scripture must be applied in the same way, for the same purpose, all throughout history. To do that is to force God's Word in a box in which it was never meant to be placed into. There may be some passages--like John 3:16, for example--that do mean the same thing throughout all of history. There are others, like the one in question, that I believe do not.
Based upon my study, there seems to be a historical and cultural contextual element of this that is often overlooked. I say this for a couple of reasons:
1. The Bible was not written in a vacuum; ergo, it should not be interpreted in one. First century context is key to understanding this passage, as it is for many other passages in the New Testament, for that matter.
2. Someone may correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to me to be the only place in the Bible that there seems to be an explicit and unilateral command for head coverings to be worn by women and head coverings not to be worn by men. Veils, coverings, hair, etc. are all discussed elsewhere in the Bible, but in a more passive way that are simply details of the story, that have a symbolic meaning, or were just for one person. Another thing I will mention is that God also commanded Samson to have long hair. Some might posit a contradiction here, although I believe that accusation to be unfounded, which I will briefly mention a little later.
What About Head Coverings for Women?
In the city of Corinth, a woman who would walk around with her hair uncovered (not just her head, but specifically her hair) signified that she was “available” (single, unmarried, etc.). This was a major problem as the city of Corinth was rife with sexual immorality and promiscuity (as we see in Paul’s second letter dealing with sin in the church). Paul was also dealing with a rebellious view of women in that day—much like the modern third-wave feminist movement—which said that married women could walk around as if they were unmarried and be promiscuous with whomever they pleased. Paul was instructing the women of the church of Corinth to be counter-cultural, and he was using a real world example to show them how to do so, demonstrating that they should be devoted to their husbands as their husbands are devoted to God. Examples of counter-cultural Christ-likeness might be different for women of today’s culture. It could look like not engaging in slanderous talk about their husbands in ladies groups or posting their marriages on the internet for all to see and criticize, and obviously no Christian should engage in sexual promiscuity.
Based upon this understanding, in our time, that specific example that Paul gave would be like a married women walking about without her wedding band and flirting with men as if she were not betrothed, despite her husbands objections. The culturally acceptable symbol of a married woman in first century Corinth was a head covering; today, it is a marriage ring. Devotion to their husbands is still a binding command for Christian women today, but head coverings were a cultural symbol of that devotion in first-century Corinth, not a binding edict for the church at large for prayer today.
Head Coverings for Men?
Regarding the command for men not to have a head covering, if that were to be taken in it’s most literal sense, men would need to shave their heads entirely when they pray, because hair covers their head. But again, some things are meant to convey a specific theological or applicable meaning, or set of principles over and above being interpreted in the most literal way possible. Often the culturally elite men of that day, when they would go to pagan temples, would cover their heads with their most expensive garments to signify their wealth and social status. This was to show off to other people, sometimes exclude the poor from worship, and gain favor with their false gods. Paul was warning against externally motivated worship, encouraging the men to worship in Spirit and in truth and not make others who might be poor feel excluded from worship because they didn't have an expensive garment to cover their heads with.
The point here is that our devotion to God begins with internal heart posture, not external appearances. And although our works do flow from this heart posture, they do not produce it in us. But an understanding of the cultural implications of male head coverings has to inform the understanding of this passage. Jesus also warned against this externally motivated worship when he taught his disciples to pray. Consider Matthew 6:5-6:
“Whenever you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by people. Truly I tell you, they have their reward. But when you pray, go into your private room, shut your door, and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
I would think if head coverings were an important part of prayer for the entirety of the body of Christ, Jesus would have made mention of a veil or a covering or something of that nature. In the parallel passage of Luke 11:1-4, there is no mention of it either. This is another reason I would posit that Paul was giving a command that speaks to a specific cultural implication of first-century Corinth and not issuing a unilateral command to the church for all time.
What About Men With Long Hair?
Regarding 1 Corinthians 7:14 and the issue of men and long hair, again, context is important. This is the only time in the Scriptures that it seems to be unilaterally commanded that men should never have long hair. Why is this so? Again, I believe, based on my own study of Scripture, that it was a culturally relevant example of how men were to act in the first century. It would have been scandalous for a man to have long hair in Corinth. And it was not because Paul was issuing an edict for the entirety of the church for all of human history. This view raises several other problems with other passages of Scripture. The more harmonizing approach is because of the rampant sexual immorality in the city. Often male temple prostitutes would wear their hair long (and women short) in rebellion to God’s created order of male and female (and sometimes they would even cross dress!). Again, this is simply a culturally relevant example of how men are to be counter-cultural. An example of this today is not downing our wives in men’s groups, helping raise our children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, helping churches disciple future leaders, and other such things that God calls us to as Biblical, Christlike men (including being fully devoted to our wives, both mentally, emotionally, and sexually).
Further, most of the first century Jewish men probably didn’t cut their hair off at the ears like many think of when they think of "Christian" hairstyles today, including our Lord when he walked the earth. In fact, some of them--because of the way Roman soldiers and Greek pagan-god-worshippers would shave their heads--may have even viewed extremely short hair for men as scandalous. Nonetheless, no one had a military style crew cut. They certainly didn't style it or perfume it like the women of the day, but it was definitely longer than most Christians think of when they think of "Christian" hairstyles. Everyone also wore robes and tunics, and although there were some distinguishing marks from male to female, by and large they were the same type of garments. They were probably simply cut and styled differently for men versus women.
One strong example that I think of is where God issued the Nazarite vow, specifically to Samson in Judges 13-16 about NOT cutting his hair. It was detrimental when Samson fell into Delilah’s arms and she cut his hair. Removed from its context, the Nazarite vow could be construed as a command from God for men to never cut their hair. I have heard of a few fringe cultic groups that abide by this standard. Obviously this is erroneous, as the context to this part of Scripture is extremely important to indicate the meaning of the text. It would also posit a contradiction to Paul’s words here in 1 Corinthians. And it is understood that God's Word never contradicts itself. Why, then, would God seem to command such a thing in one time period (and for just one man, or at best a small group of individuals) and yet for some reason change his edict to forbid it in another? Here’s the thing: He doesn’t. God’s commands are not arbitrary and neither is his will; he does have the power to change his mind, but that is not what is happening here. Just like he had a specific purpose for choosing Samson and having him be raised into the Nazarite vow, he has a specific purpose for giving us this passage in 1 Corinthians 7:2-16. Long hair for a man was shameful because of the cultural implications it would have had for a man’s male identity in first-century Corinth, not because of an arbitrary universal edict that men should never grow their hair past their ears. I believe to interpret verse 14 in the latter way would be dishonoring to the context in which this passage was written and to the Scriptural story as a whole. Paul--and more importantly, God--is trying to tell us men to live in a cultural identity that shows you are a man of God. Do not succumb to cultural pressures to suppress manhood or to not live up to the potential that God created men to be.
It would be closer to men cross-dressing today. That is, men who, not only may grow their hair a bit longer, but also resort to wearing makeup, dresses and skirts, high heels, or other things associated with female identity throughout our culture. Moreover, I would apply it further and say that it is not just speaking about cross-dressing men, but men who abdicate their responsibilities in the home or fail to take responsibility for things that we should. This abdication could be through work, through chasing other women besides his wife, or simply not being present enough at home and ignoring the needs of the family. Sure, no man is perfect, and we must live in dependence to Christ every single day. It would also be akin to a little boy getting a Barbie Dreamhouse or a Cabbage Patch doll for their birthday. That’s embarrassing for him to tell his friends, “My mom got my a Barbie dreamhouse!” That’s for little girls, not little boys and his friends would likely tease him about it a fair bit. It’s far less embarrassing to tell his friends he got a cowboy hat and a cap gun to play texas rangers with!
In this passage, the apostle Paul was contextualizing his message so his hearers could understand what he was telling them in their own contexts. Without this understanding of Paul's thought process, it is difficult to interpret rightly this difficult passage of Scripture.
Here are some wise words from the great Jonathan Edward’s on cultural symbols for things God forbids:
“ It is against nature in a proper sense, to bow down before an idol, because it is against nature to adore an idol; and bowing down, by universal custom, is used to denote adoration; but if bowing down by universal custom were used to denote contempt, it would not be against nature.” [Emphasis mine]
(The Works of Jonathan Edwards, II:800).”
In other words, the physical act of bowing before an idol is only sinful because bowing is the universal sign for adoration. Everyone undersands that is what one would be doing. If bowing were universally used to show contempt for idols and clapping were used to worship them, we would probably bow much more in our worship services and refrain from too much clapping.
All of this is merely my opinion, although I believe that I am in good company from several wise, conservative, Christian commentators. I will finish with a reference to Paul’s words in verse 16:
“If anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God.”
1 Corinthians 11:16 (CSB)
Based upon his statement in verse 16, I believe Paul would emphasize spiritual unity over outward appearnaces and whether or not someone's choices align perfectly with one interpretation of Scripture or another.