The only Old Testament reference to headcovering for religious purposes is in the description of the clothing of Aaron’s sons as priests.

“And for Aaron’s sons you shall make coats and girdles and caps; you shall make them for glory and beauty.”                            (Exodus 28:40)

“Now this is what you shall do to them to consecrate them, that they may serve me as priests....You shall bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tent of meeting, and wash them with water.... and you shall set the turban on his head, and put the holy crown upon the turban.  And you shall take the anointing oil and pour it on his head and anoint him.  Then you shall bring his sons, and put coats on them, and you shall gird them with girdles and bind caps on them; and the priesthood shall be theirs by a perpetual statute.                                                                       (Exodus 29:1-9)

These headcoverings and other special clothes were a sign of their consecration as priests and according to Exodus 28:40 they were intended to make the priests look impressive.  Similar headcoverings are prescribed for the Levitical priests in Ezekiel 44:18. No instructions were given as to what ordinary Israelites were to wear or not wear on their heads during religious ceremonies, but Jewish practice of wearing prayer shawls and Episcopal and Roman Catholic usage of mitres are sometimes explained by reference to the priests’ bonnets.  Headcoverings were worn sometimes as a protection against the dust and heat in Mediterranean lands; sometimes as part of expensive personal adornment.  Isaiah warned that these would all be swept away when judgment came upon Jerusalem (Isaiah 3:16-26).

Veils to cover the face and perhaps the head seem to have varying significance according to cultural understanding.  Rebekah covered herself with a veil before she met Isaac, but she spoke to his servant unveiled (Genesis 24:65). The difference between cultural expectations then and now can be observed in other practices.  Bracelets were placed on Rebekah’s arms, but the ring not on her finger, but “in her nose” (Genesis 24:47 NIV).  In a different cultural context a woman wearing a veil was known to be a prostitute.

Tamar... put off her widow’s garments and put on a veil.... When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a harlot, for she had covered her face. 

(Genesis 38:14-15)

Elsewhere covering the head (and going barefoot and tearing one’s clothes) could be a sign of mourning and repentance (2 Samuel 15:30-32; Esther 6:12).  Alternatively, according to Ezekiel 24:17, going barefoot and bareheaded was a sign of mourning.

In the New Testament the only reference to headcovering is in 1 Corinthians 11, a passage which has been described as one of the Bible’s most difficult passages to understand.  Because this passage has often been used to give a theological justification for the wearing of hats, a detailed analysis is given in a separate booklet. [1]

The context of 1 Corinthians 11 is difficult to unravel, but is obviously different from the contexts quoted above from the Old Testament.  It was evidently felt to be a disgrace for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, despite the fact that this appears to have been normal Jewish practice, at least for priests. Perhaps the Roman custom whereby men veiled their heads when praying to pagan gods is the background here.

Although it is often assumed that Paul expects men to pray bareheaded, it may well be that he means without the Roman style of veil as worn by Roman men at prayer, not without the kind of headgear popularly worn by men in the East.  Contrariwise, it was felt to be a disgrace for a woman to pray or prophesy without headcovering. 

Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonours her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven.

                                                                                  (1 Corinthians 11:4-5)

In view of the teaching of Jesus and of Paul that true worship is in “spirit and truth” and not essentially to do with ritual practices, it seems strange if in this passage Paul was laying down for all time a new rule for worship, a new ritual practice. The passage has been explained in various ways. Presumably the matter at issue concerned practices in some of the early ecclesias and particularly Corinth where it was felt that a misleading impression (according to the culture of the time) was being conveyed by those who addressed the congregation in prayer and prophecy.  The instructions in this passage were directed only to those brothers and sisters who spoke publicly to the meeting in prophesying or in praying.  No instructions on headcovering were given to those who were sitting silently in the meeting.  Nor is there any question here of a headcovering being suggested at the Breaking of Bread meal.

It is not clear, however, whether the passage is talking about veils or about hairstyles.  Nor is it certain that the whole passage should be read as the words of the apostle.  Reasons can be given to suggest that Paul may be quoting comments from Corinth and then disagreeing with headcovering.

Alternatively it may be that Paul instructed the sisters who were praying and prophesying to wear veils, since not to do so gave the wrong impression in a society where respectable women normally kept quiet and at least in some areas of the ancient world wore veils in public.  Had the problem been in an alternative cultural context, such that sisters were noticeably not wearing nose-rings (as with Rebekah above) or finger-rings (with us), if they thereby appeared to be casting doubt on their marriage relationships, we can presume, they might have been instructed to wear nose-rings or finger-rings.

As far as can be ascertained, veils in the ancient world were intended to conceal feminine beauty, keeping a wife’s attractiveness for her husband alone.  Hats today, by contrast, are chosen to enhance a woman’s appearance, and are therefore the opposite to veils. This cultural shift suggests we should take the same approach to 1 Corinthians 11 as we do to the other first century practices. We should follow the principle that marriage should be respected and husbands and wives should act properly towards one another, but wearing veils today is not the way to do it.

Against this conclusion it is sometimes claimed that deep symbolism is involved and therefore a literal application is required. However, a deep symbolism can also be claimed for laying on of hands, or anointing with oil, or observing the Sabbath, yet we do not keep these literally. The Sabbath, for example, can be described as a “creation principle” (Genesis 2:2-3). It seems most likely that ecclesiastical tradition inherited from the churches in the 19th century is the real reason why hats (despite the fact that they are decoration and not covering) are still advocated. If headcovering and long, uncut hair for women, and the reverse for men had been the divine intention, it is surprising that the only mention of it was this one, hard-to-understand, passage. Important New Testament doctrines are mentioned repeatedly so that there can be no misunderstanding, whereas it is characteristic of various cultural practices that they receive only occasional mention.