Teach Me Some Greek… Veils
Posted By Miss Jocelyn Tzahala on September 11, 2009 | Category: Feelin' Feminine, History, Homeschooling, I Follow Yeshua HaMashyiach, Modesty, The Scriptures
And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman’s head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse.” Numbers 5:18
The point being, in order to uncover, she must have been previously covered. The passage makes the assumption that any wife brought before a priest *will* be covered. From Sha’ul’s comment in 1 Corinthians 11:16 “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God” it seems clear he is referring to the custom that wives *do* cover their heads.
Now, what kind of covering is deemed appropriate? Is a woman’s hair sufficient? No. This is because Sha’ul used different Greek words for the natural hair covering and the headship covering. Let’s look at the Greek words in the passage:
Sha’ul [Paul] said that men should not cover/katakalupto (Strong’s 2619) their heads. And in verse 11 Sha’ul contrasts that with: “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered/akatakaluptos/?” (Strong’s 177) Note that ‘uncovered’/akatakaluptos is the opposite of ‘to cover’/katakalupto. Katakaluptos basically means to UNcover or UNveil. So far, we have a ‘men uncover, women cover’ command. Now for where the confusion comes in: When Sha’ul refers to a woman’s natural hair covering, he uses an altogether different word: “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering/peribolaion.” (Strong’s 4018). Peribolaion means something thrown around (loose items like a veil, a mantle, a vesture). Hair is more like a glorious decoration given to woman. Now if Sha’ul had meant the naturally occurring hair covering and the headship-type covering to be one and the same, he would have used the same word for each. Instead, a woman’s natural hair covering (peribolaion) is being contrasted to this other covering (katakalupto) that women wear. In fact, the katakalupto actually *covers* the peribolaion.
Sha’ul has begun this passage showing the contrasts between men and women in this passage: men are uncovered, women are covered. Then Sha’ul supports his case for headcovering by pointing out that even in nature a women is given a covering — by her long hair. But Sha’ul never makes the leap that hair itself *is* a suitable headcover alone. If such a natural covering sufficed, then Sha’ul is wasting his time teaching this since the women already had a natural hair covering. Sha’ul deliberately used different words for the two coverings so we would understand they were complementary to each other but not identical. So there is *no* choice offered in this passage that one may choose to either shave one’s head and cover it, or to leave one’s hair long and remain uncovered. The natural order is to either wear a covering over the hair or to fully exploit the shame of being uncovered by also shaving off one’s hair too. Better: if you resist submitting to the customary female headcovering, you may as well reject your natural hair as well…. read complete article.
Comments
29 Responses to “Teach Me Some Greek… Veils”
Leave a Reply
Thank you for visiting my site! I hope that it has encouraged and challenged you in someway. Please be aware that my blog is not intended for any debatable purposes (honestly!!), though that's not to say admonishment (via the Scriptures in context) is not welcome. This is simply just a place for me to share what YHVH-God is convicting me of and showing me in my walk with Him. Please read "You're Judgmental" before commenting if the thought strikes you.
I have comments set for moderation and I reserve the right to deny or edit out comments if I feel it necessary. I will deny comments that go against the Scriptures. If you are going to refute what I say, please use a Scripture for each belief, in context.
Also note that if you do not use a valid email address your comment will not be published, no exceptions. Your email is only seen by me so that I might clear my website of spammers. You can read My Site, My Right for more on my site rules.
Wanna a place an image next to your comment? Get yourself a gravatar.
Please make sure you sign up for comment-notifications (below) to receive reply comments in your inbox as I do answer comments on the post thread. Thank you for commenting!
Shalom, welcome to A Pondering Heart. I hope you will be challenged by what you read here and it will cause you to search deeper and deeper into the Word of YAH. My name is Jocelyn Tzahala. I'm 19, Woman, Believer. I'm passionate and straight forward... take that into consideration. I am a young woman, living in Latin America, seeking to be 'set apart as YHVH is set-apart". I want my faith to resemble that Avraham because in him YHVH found a man who would trust in him with everything and act upon his Word. My hope is that my life may be a sweet fragrance unto YHVH the MOST HIGH! HalleluYAH! Read more
So does this still refer to virgins? Or is this just for married women? And what kind of covering have you decided on?
[Reply]
hehe I’m not sure. Still looking. Like I said in my other article today Jewish women only cover if they’re married but then it does say in Isaiah about the virgins being stripped of their veils.
I haven’t decided. : )
[Reply]
What I would like to know Jocelyn, is if you are considering wearing a head covering yourself. I am sure you are still doing research on all of this, as you said above. But if it comes to be that unmarried young women are to wear head covering’s, do you think you will wear one yourself? I am just wondering. :) I am trying to have an open mind about all of this. After all, I used to think girls who wore dresses all the time were legalistic, but God changed my heart on that matter. So He could want me to make this change as well.
I appreciate all the hard work you are putting into this study and truly seeking out what the bible has to say about it. :) I’ll be praying for you as you study more on this topic! May the Lord show all of us His will in this and give us the courage to follow through if that be the case.
Blessings!
~Rachel~
[Reply]
Miss Jocelyn's Reply:
September 12th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Yes, I am – though not sure how. I agree with what the article said about what is adequate: “from a headband, to a scarf, to a hat, to a full veil.” I have never worn my hair up or worn hats (I look pretty goofy) so this is going to be something.
I hope if anything that I can encourage others to really seek this out with no questions asked (at least at first lol). “His will in this and give us the courage to follow through if that be the case.” Amen!
[Reply]
Katy's Reply:
September 16th, 2009 at 10:23 am
I found some really amazing scarves (square 22 inch ones) at walmart for $7 last week.
.-= Katy´s last blog ..There comes a time… =-.
[Reply]
I have this site bookmarked: http://tznius.com/ – they have some beautiful scarves and instructions on tying, etc. Their customer service is wonderful too. I’ve ordered from them a few times.
.-= QuietMom´s last blog ..Tell Me Thursday – 9/10/09 – Tastes Like Chicken =-.
[Reply]
Teresa Smith's Reply:
October 27th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Here is one that I get my scarves from…http://www.coveryourhair.com/
[Reply]
Great article Jocelyn! I sometimes wish that everyone could read the Bible in the original languages, then there wouldn’t be any confusion.
.-= Victoria Rebecca´s last blog ..I Got An Award!!! =-.
[Reply]
Great post – I have read the article you linked to before, and I do agree with it. I’m inclined to use a wide headband – the kind that you can use scrunched up as a narrow headband or stretched out for full coverage. Cover Your Hair is a great site, by the way, though I can’t use it as the shipping to the UK is prohibitive. Saying that, it should be quite easy to make my own headbands so I might try that!
.-= Jade´s last blog ..Prayer Request… =-.
[Reply]
Well, you already know where I stand on this but I just wanted to drop in and say that I’m praying for you and am so glad that you’re seeking the Lord about this. :)
[Reply]
Wow, this is so thorough, and thought provoking!
.-= Muthering Heights´s last blog ..They May Do It =-.
[Reply]
Miss Jocelyn's Reply:
September 13th, 2009 at 12:14 am
I agree. With the original greek words and meanings I don’t know if it could be any more clear. Obviously when translated the translators didn’t know the difference (or how to write them) between the words and is why it’s so confusing. lol
[Reply]
when the proper words are used it all makes sense! somehow it doesn’t make it seem easier to start wearing one i agree. has your mother or sister decided to wear one? if so which type?
.-= tami aka agodlyhomemaker´s last blog ..links that may interest you =-.
[Reply]
i forgot to sign up for updates so i am posting again to do so lol
.-= tami aka agodlyhomemaker´s last blog ..links that may interest you =-.
[Reply]
Hi all,
Something to consider concerning your question about virgins and veiling:
If you are an unmarried woman, your hair is not your father’s glory. It will be your husband’s, one day, but even though you are under your father’s protection until he hands you over into marriage, he does not have the exact same role that your husband will have. In the headship order Paul mentions, the husband is the head of the wife, but the father is not the head of the daughter.
Veiling is certainly also a matter of modesty, but that being said, young maidens also need to find a husband still. So while you might cover at home, while you are at work, or during worship, you might want to consider not covering when you are in the company of someone your family would consider a suitor, as your long hair will most certainly be attractive to your future husband. And there is nothing wrong with that.
As far as the passage from Isaiah 47 is concerned, I read the unveiling there as an indication of the complete shame that the daughter of Babylon will be put to, the shame of a captive. Considering her haughty manners, her veil would have been more of a mockery anyway, and Yahweh will not be mocked. If you continue reading Isaiah 47, you will discover that this daughter of Babylon we meet here is also called mistress of kingdoms who does not expect to be a widow or lose her children, someone who feels comfortable in her wickedness… I am not so sure if I would look to this woman for anything other than the worst example and a dire warning.
And one more thing: I guess young women around the age of 20 who were not married yet were very rare in biblical times. So you probably won’t find an ordinance saying anything that tells you anything about your specific situation. Girls would have been betrothed practically from the time they reached the age of accountability, and hence would have covered as soon as they came of age (which was around the age of 13).
Grace and Peace,
Talitha
[Reply]
Great post!! I shared this with my dad…he said he’ll study it some more. Please let me know if you decide to veil!! Your post seems quite clear, however I don’t want to do something my dad doesn’t think I should do, you know?
Hugs and love to you!! Great post!!
[Reply]
I really thank you for these thoughts on veiling.
As I’ve said before, I have been studying this subject for a while now. YHWH has been pointing me to cover, but I must admit that I have been worried about how I’ll look. It’s such a terribly shallow thought, I know! I’m not proud of it. I’m also worried about what my family will think. It has been about 6 months since I’ve gone “skirt-only” (with the exception of work), I don’t know what they’ll think of veiling.
But I also have more questions, on whether unmarried women should even be wearing veils, which coverings are appropriate, and do we wear them even in the privacy of our own home? Which is another reason I have been shamefully “stalling” this.
[Reply]
Oh, just one more quick thought–on who ought to wear a covering.
I’m no expert, but I do know that there is no specific word in NT Greek for “husband” or “wife”, just words for man and woman. So, if your translation of the Bible says “husband” or “wife” in this passage, that is the interpretation of the translators. It’s hard to say which it ought to be, but I don’t see the context being “husband” and “wife”.
In my (and my husband’s) opinion, this passage is more general–in several places it says “every man” or “every woman”. I don’t think it’s limited to husbands and wives. So, an unmarried woman, in my opinion, is bound by this command as well, and her father would be the “man” who is her head until she is given to her husband as her new head. I suppose an unmarried woman or widow would cover to show her submission to God’s order in general.
If this passage is for married people, then only married men would have to UNcover for prayer or prophesying. I just don’t see this as Paul’s intent. The application to all believing men and women makes more sense to me.
Like I said, I’m no expert. But there’s some food for thought.
Grace and Peace!
Lauren
.-= Lauren´s last blog ..Proud of My Humility? =-.
[Reply]
Talitha Nun's Reply:
September 16th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Lauren,
Very interesting post… Let’s follow this line of reasoning a little further :)
I looked up the Greek word for “woman”, and found that, in fact, it can mean both “woman” and “wife”, just as the word for “man” can mean both “man” and “husband”. So indeed, the context has to decide which word is used, and in any case, it seems to me, it is the decision of the translator whether he or she uses “woman” or “wife”, “man” or “husband”. It is not like the NT Greek does not have a word for “wife” / “husband”, but that the word they have is the same word they would use for “woman” / “man”.
So I was curious to find out why the translators of my translation (I prefer the ESV, although I always check with other translations, especially in cases that seem unclear at first glance) decided to use “wife” and “husband” in 1Cor 11:3. What is it that determines the context for the translators in such a way that they would understand Paul to be talking about wife and husband in the headship verse, rather than, more generally, man and woman ?
Here is what I found (and I am pasting the KJV translation with Strong’s numbers, just to make it easier to follow the argument):
1Co 11:3 ButG1161 I wouldG2309 have youG5209 know,G1492 thatG3754 theG3588 headG2776 of everyG3956 manG435 isG2076 Christ;G5547 andG1161 the headG2776 of the womanG1135 is theG3588 man;G435 andG1161 the headG2776 of ChristG5547 is God.G2316
The context seems to be determined by the usage of a definite article in front of the word for “man” or “husband” in the second part of the verse. While in the first part, “every man” is placed under the authority of Christ, in the second part “woman/wife” (no article here in the Greek) is placed under the authority of “the/this/that/one” man, in short, woman is placed under the authority of a specific man. Since the word for “man” cannot be translated “father”, it seems indeed obvious here that the context determines “husband” and “wife” as the most likely translation, most likely in terms of the writer’s, Paul’s, intention. Looking at this, it is actually not very hard to say what the proper translation ought to be, IMHO.
So I still see the general command for covering directed towards wives first and foremost, and not females in general. The ESV translation reflects this too, for example in verse 5, where they translate “every wife”, as opposed to “every man” in verse 4, indicating that indeed this verse refers to all man, and not married men alone, whereas verse 4 does not refer to all women, but to wives in particular.
1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
1Co 11:5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
(ESV)
It also makes much more sense to me that only married women are commanded to cover, for fairly practical reasons. In a society where lusting after a married woman is a sin, men need some outward sign that tells them that a particular woman is already “under authority” – this sign, or symbol, would have been a head covering. A woman shows her status by covering up, taking pains at the same time not to be a stumbling block to the brethren, and not to disgrace her husband’s house by shameless, immodest attire.
Daughters, on the other hand, are not under the authority of a husband yet, hence it would have been quite confusing for a Hebrew man if not betrothed “damsels” covered their heads just like the married women did. The authority of the father is not the same authority the husband will have: Paul’s headship order does not indicate that “man” can be read as “father ” here ! So while the father certainly has the duty to protect and guide his daughters (and sons !), he is not the head of the daughters in the same way he is the head of his wife. He is to lead his household practically and spiritually and lead his daughters into godly marriage, true enough, but the daughters do not show his authority over them by covering their heads. Scripture does not bear this out.
Please look at the 1Cor 11:7-9 too: Even though the translation (even in the ESV ! :) ) says “man” and “woman”, I don’t think anyone would read these verses to talk about fathers and daughters. They refer back to the Garden of Eden, quite obviously, where it was all about a man and his help meet.
So if you young ladies wish to cover up for modesty reason, I think you are certainly on the safe side, but 1Cor 11 does not speak to unmarried 20-year-olds, as I think I mentioned before. Paul is, on the other hand, quite clear about married women and covering.
Grace and Peace,
Talitha
[Reply]
Lauren's Reply:
October 15th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Talitha, I am sorry it has taken me so long to respond to you, but I’ve been busy with a newborn and catching up on home responsibilities. I so wish we could sit down to a cup of tea and discuss these things in person. I think it would be fun. As for this discussion, I don’t like to make a big deal of this particular subject—I just want to provide another point of view for the ladies who are undecided, and so that’s my goal as I respond to you.
First of all, we are in agreement that the Greek words for “man” and “woman” are indeed the words used for “husband” and “wife”. My point was that the default translation of “aner” and “gune” is “man” and “woman”. Only if the context REQUIRES it should they be limited to the more narrow “husband” and “wife”.
You said in your post: “in short, woman is placed under the authority of a specific man. Since the word for “man” cannot be translated “father”, it seems indeed obvious here that the context determines “husband” and “wife” as the most likely translation”
I couldn’t agree more that the definite article indicates a woman is placed under a specific man! However, I don’t want to translate “aner” as “father”–I don’t need to. If it simply says “man” then my point of view fits the passage. “Man” would refer to any specific man who is the head of a woman, including both fathers and husbands. The fact that woman is subject to THE man is significant in that women aren’t to submit to every man out there, but to the specific man whom God has placed over her—whether her husband or father.
This makes sense in the context of the passage since all men are subject to Christ. And every woman is to be subject to a specific man. God’s headship order doesn’t apply to men and wives only. This order, this truth, is far more universal.
Another point you made:
“It also makes much more sense to me that only married women are commanded to cover, for fairly practical reasons. In a society where lusting after a married woman is a sin, men need some outward sign that tells them that a particular woman is already “under authority” – this sign, or symbol, would have been a head covering.”
I must be straight forward—you have missed a very important detail here. Yes, it’s wrong for a man to lust after a married woman. But it is NO LESS ADULTERY when a MARRIED man lusts after a SINGLE woman. Jesus said, “everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matt. 5:27 The word for everyone is indeed “all” or “every”. And the word for woman is not preceded by any article or possessive, nor does the context imply that she is a wife. Looking on a woman to lust after her is adultery, according to Jesus. Men don’t need an outward sign to tell them who they can or can’t lust after—they need to obey God’s command not to lust at all. I’m not saying we ladies don’t have to dress modestly—we certainly do—I’m just saying that IF the headcovering serves a practical purpose of preventing lust, then ALL women should wear it! In reality, Paul never even mentions modesty as a reason for the headcovering.
Additionally, Paul never says the headcovering is a symbol of marriage, but a symbol of authority. Biblically, is there a difference between a wife’s submission and a daughter’s? A wife is to respect and submit to her husband as to the Lord—she is to obey. A daughter is to obey and honor her father. So basically, a woman’s responsibility is the same in either case. The difference is not in her submission, but in the nature of the relationship and in the commands to her authority—the father to instruct and train and not exasperate, the husband to love (physically and sacrificially) and cherish and treat her as a “fellow heir in the grace of life”. (See Eph. 5 and 1 Pet 3) Either way, the woman is under a man’s authority, and she is responsible to submit/obey and respect/honor him.
So why then doesn’t a son wear a covering? Look farther into the passage. We have already seen that ONE reason for the covering is headship and authority. But that is not the ONLY reason. Another is given in verse 7: “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” The reason is glory. A man, whether a son or a husband, is the image and glory of God, therefore he must not be covered when praying or prophesying. A woman, whether a daughter or wife, is the glory of man—she is to cover. Why is a woman the glory of man? Paul tells us in verse 8: because the woman originates from the man and she was created for his sake.
This goes back to creation, ”the Garden of Eden”, as you said. It was not “all about a man and his help-meet”, though. We don’t just learn about husbands and wives in the garden. We learn about God’s purpose for men, and his purpose for women. (If you insist that the reference to creation means this has to say “husbands” and “wives”, then what do you do with 1 Timothy 2:11-12 where Paul instructs women to be silent in church and not to hold authority over men? He appeals to creation in that passage. If the appeal to creation and Adam and Eve means that we should render “aner” and “gune” as husband and wife, then you would need to be consistent and do the same in this passage. And if you did, do you think Paul really intends for wives to be silent only, giving freedom for unmarried women to speak and hold authority over men???) The conclusion from 1 Cor 11:7-8 is that all men are both the image and glory of God—even sons—so all men should be uncovered. And also that all women are the glory of man (based on creation, not the marriage relationship), so all women should be covered.
To sum up my reasoning: God intends for a covering to be worn by women while praying or prophesying to show their submission to God’s order of creation, to honor their head, and to cover the glory of man (and her glory, her hair). A man does not cover because he is intended to lead, and he is the image and glory of God—God’s glory in man is not to be hidden. So, when men and women are together in prayer or prophecy, God’s glory is seen, but man’s and woman’s glory is hidden.
Talitha, I respect you and your desire to obey the Scriptures as you understand them. In fact, it makes me smile! I’m very encouraged to find other ladies who take this passage seriously–seeking to obey both the physical commands and the heart of godly submission which their obedience represents. You other ladies who are undecided, I’d encourage you to prayerfully sort through what we’ve each shared, but also make a point of asking your father or husband and discussing it with him. Then follow his lead.
Let’s all keep digging! And praise God for what He has shown to each of us in His word!
Grace and Peace,
Lauren
[Reply]
I’ve enjoyed reading both posts and the comments. The question that remains for me is that if we are to wear a covering… do we wear it all the time? These verses only mention prayer and prophesy. Historically (and I know we take from the Bible not just history, but history does at times take from Biblical mandates and ways) women wore their hair long until they were ready to court and then it went up. A woman of marriageable age who wore her hair long was considered unlady like. I also recently watched a movie taking place in 1899 and the woman ran off without her hat and was chastised for not being a lady. I know these are men’s traditions, but wonder if they come from God’s desires. They are just thoughts that come to mind as I read. Still thinking.
.-= Theresa´s last blog ..Capitol Air Show 2009 =-.
[Reply]
Miss Jocelyn's Reply:
September 20th, 2009 at 12:39 am
We are now, through Yeshua, preists of the kingdom and the scriptures tells us that preists were not to have their heads uncovered when they go before the altar. They had to have a turban and a special madalion on their head before entering the preistly-duties. So what Paul is saying in verse 7 “a man indeed should not have his head veiled” is a general statement apart from prayer as is the previous verse is also a general statement about women vieling.
For a woman to have her hair cut short or her head shaved, prayer or not, is the same as being unvieled and a disgrace… so being unvield even if with long hair would be a disgrace. I can only assume this would be you are to veil at all times.
[Reply]
Hi all,
I tested some bible software yesterday and punched “head covering” in their subject search just to see what would come up. One of the results was a very interesting article from the “Dictionary of Paul and His Letters” (full reference beneath); it was in fact so interesting that I thought I’d paste it here for all of you ladies to consider. You might have noticed by now that I am always interested in practical considerations with regards to what Scripture is telling us, and I thought the background information given here to be rather enlightening.
“Although Greek women had traditionally been secluded in the home to a great extent, there is not much evidence for frequent head coverings among them in this period, certainly not among the well-to-do. East of Greece, however, the custom was prevalent, including in Palestine and southern Roman Asia (e.g., Tarsus; see MacMullen); further, Roman women (like Roman men) covered their heads in worship, in contrast to Greek women and men. The Corinthian church, located near a major port and born in a synagogue (Acts 18:4, 7–8), probably included a number of Eastern immigrants for whom the covering was an important practice. Evidence from Egypt indicates that many Jewish women covered their heads outside Palestine, even if they were Hellenized in many other respects (Philo; Joseph and Asenath). But more is probably involved than merely a clash of cultural icons; the head covering was a cultural issue, but it symbolized certain values that went deeper than the symbol itself.
“Women’s hair was a prime object of male lust in the ancient Mediterranean world (Apuleius Met. 2.8?9; Sifre Num. 11.2.3); societies which employed head coverings thus viewed uncovered married women as unfaithful to their husbands, that is, seeking another man (cf. m. Ket. 7:6; virgins and prostitutes, conversely, were expected not to cover their heads, since they were looking for men). Women who covered their heads could thus view uncovered women as a threat; uncovered women, however, undoubtedly viewed the covering custom as restrictive and saw the way they dressed their hair as their own business. Significantly, the uncovered women probably include the cultured women of higher status, whose family homes hosted most of the house churches. Statues show that well-to-do women pursued fashionable hairstyles and uncovered heads, styles that poorer women probably considered seductive. Given the class conflict in the Corinthian church evident from other passages in 1 Corinthians (e.g., 1 Cor 11:21-22; see Theissen), this would easily have flared into a major issue of controversy (see Keener 1992, 22?31; cf. Thompson)”
From: Hawthorne, Gerald F. ; Martin, Ralph P. ; Reid, Daniel G.: Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Downers Grove, Ill. : InterVarsity Press, 1993, S. 585
Notice how the only time the upper class Greek women would have met men (other than those of their immediate household) would have been at times of worship, and the impact this has on the understanding of Paul’s statement that women should cover “when praying and prophesying”… Notice too what it says about virgins, i.e. unmarried / unbetrothed ladies looking for men.
I believe I said it before, so please forgive me the repetition, but hair is still a prime object of “male lust” today, and women know this: Look how much effort goes into many women’s hair style.
Grace and Peace,
Talitha
[Reply]
I have a question. The site you linked to (www.lightofmashiach.org) doesn’t believe that it does not matter that a woman wears pants. I believe you don’t wear pants (as I don’t either), or did that change? I’m just curious.
[Reply]
Miss Jocelyn Tzahala's Reply:
April 16th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
No, it didn’t change. I don’t wear pants. Can you give me the place on Light of Mashiach where it says about pants? :)
[Reply]
I appologize for being so late in coming to this post, but I’ve just read through this thread and I wanted to add a little something. I remember a time several years ago when I had read through 1 Corinthians 11 and struggled with how to apply the verses on head coverings. Naturally, I went to my beloved husband for cousel on this matter.
We looked at the passage together and he explained to me that, if you take this passage with others (I’ll get to those shortly), then it’s best to understand 1 Corinthians 11 as Paul addressing a cultural expectation for that particular region.
There is no doubt that this is a difficult passage, but when I look at the rest of the New Testament, I have to think that Paul was asking the women to adhere to the social expectations (i.e. of Corinth) which would properly show their humility and submission to their husbands.
Now. The other passages which I find very helpful:
1 Peter 3:2 reads, “Your adornment must not be merely external — braiding the hair, wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses.”
Look also at 1 Timothy 2:9-10. “I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.”
Why would Peter and Paul need to caution them about their elaborate hairdos if their hair was covered? He could have just said, “Be sure your head is covered.” The women being addressed in these two passages must not have been wearing head coverings if the apostles were able to address the hair braiding issue. And Paul did not rebuke them for being uncovered, nor did he tell them to cover their heads, he simply told them not to get carried away with the elaborate worldly practice of the time, where ladies would draw lots of attention to themselves with intricate and time-consuming (and no doubt expensive) hair styles – even weaving gold jewelry and pearls into the braid.
And another helpful passage:
Do you remember when Jesus was invited to Simon’s house in Luke 7? A woman entered the house and washed the feet of Jesus with her tears and dried His feet with her hair. Granted, she was a “sinner” and not accustomed to living according to biblical expectations, but still… Jesus did not rebuke her for having her hair uncovered. He didn’t tell her she was sexually enticing everyone present with her hair down. He did not tell his disciples not to look at her hair.
In John 12, another Mary (the sister of Martha and Lazarus) did the same thing for Jesus, and she was not a new and uninformed follower of the Lord. Six days before the passover, Jesus visited this dear family in Bethany, and Mary washed His feet with costly ointment and wiped his feet with her hair. Why was this earnest and faithful follower of the Lord serving the Lord with her hair in full view? Certainly, she was not trying to usurp her role or entice the disciples with lewd and inappropriate behavior. The fact that her hair is visible does not even seem to be an issue. One would think Judas would have tried to discredit her act and draw attention to the issue of her hair, but he seems to completely ignore it and focus on the money they could have made with the perfume Mary used. Her hair is not even mentioned apart from the fact that she’s using it in an act of service to her Lord.
I love going to Acts 15 when I have questions about these “gray” areas. The issue of circumcision was a big deal. After all, God had clearly commanded it under the old covenant, and the Jews didn’t know what to do with Greek converts to Christianity. Do we circumcise or not? The disciples all met together to discuss this issue, and do you know what conclusion they came to? Look at v. 28-29:
“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well.”
We are to avoid those things which would make our brother stumble regardless of the liberty we know we have in Christ (see 1 Cor. 10). And we should keep ourselves from sexual impurity. There’s a lot to be said for how each of these things would translate depending on what culture you’re in. Back in 1 Cor. 11:13, Paul said, “Judge for yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered.” So let’s judge for ourselves. It must not have been proper in Corinth.
So what do we do with 1 Corinthians 11? As I said, it is a difficult passage. I think the main issue is that Paul is having to address the women who were behaving inappropriately during the worship service. They were forgetting their roles, getting up and imitating the men by removing their headcoverings to pray and prophesy. What is the point he’s trying to make when he says in verse 5, “But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prohesying disgraces her head?” Is it then fine if she prays or prophecies with her head covered? I don’t think so. I think all of their actions were inappropriate (the praying and prophesying publically and the removing of the head coverings in imitation of the men).
Just a few chapters later (14:34) Paul forbids the women to speak or lead in the church. These Corinthian women, it would seem, were imitating the men by removing their head coverings to pray (in the same way the men were), and Paul was saying that it wasn’t right. They couldn’t just imitate the men and be leaders in the church. God intended for men to lead in the church.
And the culture of Corinth! It was a prominent trade city, overrun with prostitutes who served in the Temple of Aphrodite. These prostitutes would come down at night to entice the sailers and other visitors. It’s no wonder that if you were a woman aspiring to godliness (or even just to honor and protect your marriage) you would want to gaurd yourself from looking like a prostitute. Apparently, head coverings were an important distinction in Corinth.
But please ladies, let’s not lay on ourselves “any greater burden.” We have freedom to live within our culture in a way that honors the Lord. We can be modest and discreet without drawing unnecessary attention to ourselves.
[Reply]
Lauren's Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Gratefulmom,
Wow! You’ve done a lot of thinking and searching on this matter–and how wonderful to do it alongside your husband! I think the passages you brought up are so good to keep in mind when it comes to how we are to apply this particular passage…though I don’t think they prove the covering is cultural/specific to Corinth.
I don’t think Paul was calling women to wear a covering at all times in 1 Cor 11. He says “while” praying or prophesying, implying that there are times when she will not be doing so. And he says men should be uncovered “while” praying or prophesying. If he wanted this to apply at all times, I think he would have said so, or if it was a part of everyday modest dress, I think he would have mentioned modesty as a reason. The passage itself, along with the examples you listed, show that Christian women were not expected to cover their heads all the time. Given this evidence, I don’t think Paul is talking about every single little prayer a woman thinks or whispers (as some do, referencing 1 Thes. 5:17) …I think he’s referring to public/corporate prayer (whether in a church meeting or other situations). So silent prayers throughout the day and singing in the shower aren’t in view, in my opinion! :-)
So I see no inconsistency with the passages that give instruction on women’s haridos. Instead, I see an instruction for us to be modest in our appearance, and when appropriate, to place a symbol of authority on our heads to reflect God’s created order. And if it is something that God instructs us to do in His word, then it is not a burden at all!
Not sure if you’ve ever run across that view, but it may be something more to consider. Thanks so much for bringing out those passages!
Grace and Peace,
Lauren
[Reply]
Truth or Tradition? The Talmud is not G-d’s Word even though Judaism calls it their Torah, and Paul is not our G-d and therefore cannot “add” a command to Scripture. There is no command to cover hair in Torah. There are “hints” at customs, for example it was the custom of prostitutes to cover, and for one to cover themselves before meeting their husband noted once. Btw that would mean Rebecca was uncovered the entire time she was with another man on her journey. Please check out this site which explains that it is the Mishnah (a book of Talmud) that dictates Jewish “halacha”. http://www.hebroots.org/coveringyourhair.htm
[Reply]
Dear Jocelyn,
I’ve started to cover my hair for the first time today, as a symbol of the authority the Lord has over me. I thought I’d let you know :)
God bless.
[Reply]