|
|
||
|
|
|||
Head coverings is an issue that comes up from time to time,
and while I have had several conversations with people about the subtleties of
this doctrine, I have thus far not had occasion to put anything definitive in
writing about it.
In this article, I will
summarize some of the arguments surrounding the idea that a woman should have
an artificial covering on her head, at least when she prays in a congregational
setting, and we will examine what the Scriptures teach about this issue.
First, it should be pointed
out that there is an eternal principle from the Bible governing every argument
that attempts to establish or refute a doctrine. It is this one, “In the mouth
of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (2Corinthians 13:1)
This is Paul quoting from the Law of Moses, (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19, 15) and
repeated in both the Gospels (Matthew 18:16) and the other Epistles. (1Timothy
5:19, Hebrews 10:28)
It should next be
pointed out that there is only one passage that mentions head coverings for
women, 1Corinthians 11. The entire controversy centers on the words that Paul
writes to a congregation in Corinth, and the Scriptures give no “second witness”
to the teaching. As such, if we follow the Biblical principle that is attested
in both Testaments, we can already see that the matter of Head Coverings should
never be used as a “dogma” or a test of fellowship when deciding whether or not
someone is being a “good Christian.” Even well established ideas like Spiritual
gifts, which are given the benefit of “two or three witnesses,” (Mark
16:17; 1Corinthians 12:4, 14:39; 1Thessalonians 5:20) are not to be so used. “Even
so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel
to the edifying of the church.” (1Corinthians 14:12)
This is not to say that
women’s hair is not mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, even in the New
Testament. Peter, for example, writes, “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to
your own husbands that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the
word be won by the conversation of the wives, while they behold your chaste
conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward
adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of
apparel.” (1Peter 3:1, 3) This idea has a parallel in one of Paul’s pastoral
letters, “I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands,
without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in
modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or
gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing
godliness) with good works.” (1Timothy 2:8-10)
The only commandments
we have about the appearance of women in the Bible are these. Even the Old
Testament contains no precedent for a teaching on artificial head coverings,
for the only place the word “hair” appears in the context of a woman’s head is
Isaiah in which “well set hair,” representing beauty and prosperity, is set
against “baldness,” representing misfortune. (Isaiah 3:24)
Of course, the fact
that there is no “second witness” to the teachings of 1Corinthians 11 does not
mean we are at liberty to ignore what it says! No, by no means am I advocating
throwing anything out of the Scriptures. Rather, if a teaching appears only
once, it should be used in an attempt to more deeply understand some principle
that IS set forth clearly in the Scriptures. While we are not permitted to use
it for dogma, we are certainly to use it in an attempt to understand the
information the apostle was trying to communicate, what this tells us about the
Almighty, and what He expects from us as a result of entrusting us with the
revealed knowledge.
Having said that, we
turn to Paul’s discussion of the matter of head coverings, and we will see
clearly what it is he is saying.
The apostle writes, “But
I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the
woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 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.
“For a man indeed ought
not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the
woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman
of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the
man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the
angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman
without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the
man also by the woman; but all things of God.
“Judge in yourselves:
is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself
teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a
woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a
covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom,
neither the churches of God.” (1Corinthians 11:3-16)
Head covering is, in
many minds, one of those “hot topics” about which emotions are raised along
with voices, and not everyone is willing to take a careful, rational look at
what the Scriptures tell us. Here we will go through the verses quoted above
very discreetly, and we will use other Scriptures to assist our study so that
we can be sure we have not erred through misunderstanding or carelessness.
To begin, Paul starts
by talking about a very grand principle, the relationship of God (the Father)
to Christ, Christ to man, and then man to woman. We see there a “hierarchy of
equality,” for although we move downward in terms of spiritual authority and
role, each pair of members on this list is bound together so tightly by a
common spirit as to be, from an objective standpoint, equal.
Christ declares of
Himself that He has taken on a lesser role than the Father who sent Him. He is
recorded as saying, “my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28) While this
statement has confused some readers, if the difference between role and dignity
is properly understood, they will understand that there is really no difficulty
here. The Son “humbled Himself,” as the Scriptures say, (Philippians 2:8)
associating Himself with fallen man for our sakes. Yet despite this lower role,
He nevertheless claimed equal Divinity with the Father. (John 10:30) The apostles
certainly referred to the Son as both “My Lord and my God,” (John 20:28) and
let it be remembered that the expression “my God” as an interjection of shock
or surprise would have been unthinkable in the more pious and respectful
society of first century Palestine. Thomas “answered and said unto Him” those
words, showing his understanding of what the Messiah was claiming.
Similarly, Christ is “not
ashamed to call [men] brethren,” (Hebrews 2:11) and so while He is certainly
greater in authority, being the Divine Head of the Church, He was made like us,
and thus, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what
we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for
we shall see Him as He is.” (1 John 3:2)
Similarly, women are
told to be in “subjection” to their own husbands. (Ephesians 5:22) Notice that
this is not an arbitrary subjection to “all men, everywhere.” It is also said
that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither
male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Yahshua.” (Galatians 3:28)
What Paul is doing
here, at the beginning of his discussion, is setting down the principles
governing the remainder of his words. He is establishing in his readers’ minds
that though there is equality, there are also different roles for men and
women, and it is the issue of roles that has to do with the specific matter of
head coverings.
He continues, “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.” (1Cor 11:4-6)
This is not a difficult
section to understand. If Christ is the “head of man” as he points out in the
previous verse, then why is there the need for an additional, artificial layer?
Particularly for males, Christ’s “covering” of our souls is a symbol of the way
the righteousness of Yahweh works. We are told in the Scriptures of the chosen
people, “this is his name whereby he shall be called, YAHWEH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
(Jeremiah 23:6) In the Bible, we have an example of an additional covering
being used, when there should have been no need for its presence: “and [Adam
and Eve] knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and
made themselves aprons.” (Genesis 3:7b)
When man is out of
fellowship with the Almighty, he is indeed “naked,” and will seek to cover
himself with artificial means. This is out of order.
But now here we see the
difference that “role” makes. While the man is to have no covering on his head,
because his covering is the Messiah, the woman is subject to an earthly “priest,”
her husband. That being the case, the human husband cannot perfectly represent
the glory of Yahweh, and this is precisely why “every woman that prayeth or
prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head.” This is not an
arbitrary teaching, though it only appears in one place, for it represents a
valid spiritual symbol – though again, not a dogma.
Paul underscores the
above issue of “glory” with the next words he writes, “For a man indeed ought
not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but
the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the
woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for
the man.” (verses 7-9)
Next, he turns to his
reason for assigning these different symbols to the different roles, and his
logic may appear, to casual readers, to be somewhat unusual. “For this cause
ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless
neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the
Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but
all things of God.” (verses 10-12)
What do “angels” have
to do with head coverings? The New Testament gives us some interesting insight
into the spiritual realm. It says of salvation, “Unto whom it was revealed,
that not unto themselves [the prophets], but unto us they did minister the
things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel
unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels
desire to look into.” (1Peter 1:12)
So then, the true
mechanics of salvation were only revealed in part to the faithful men and women
of the Old Testament. Peter, an apostle, proclaims that a more perfect
understanding is “now reported” by them who have been filled with the Holy
Spirit. This mystery of spiritual life is something even the angels study, in
order to learn more about the Most High.
Understanding this
idea, that even the angels learn from the interaction of the human and the
divine, we can see another aspect of head coverings revealed. This is an area
the angels can “look into,” for it represents the way that glory and
righteousness are imputed down the authoritarian “chain,” from the Father,
through the Son, through the men, to the women.
This is not an
unimportant point, for there are many who believe that Paul is teaching about
the need for artificial coverings on the heads of women, but they disregard it,
saying that it was a “cultural” matter. While culture does help us to
understand the full import of 1Corinthians 11, (as we will see shortly) the
question of whether or not female heads should be covered in prophecy and
worship has roots back in Eden, and “because of the angels.” This points to the
eternal validity of the concept.
So what is this
eternally valid concept? The last few verses of the passage provide it: “Judge
in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even
nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her
for a covering.” (verses 13-15)
The point is that, in
order to be true to the symbolism Paul is applying, a woman must be covered.
The implied answer to his question, “is it comely [becoming, proper] that a
woman pray unto God uncovered?” is “No.” We have established that the apostle
reasons from concepts that would exclude dismissing this idea as a cultural
issue. The only question that remains is this one: what is the nature of that “covering?”
Now, Paul prefaces his
conclusion on the matter with another vital question: “Doth not even nature
itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?” What
does Paul mean by “nature?” And why does he mention the length of the
man’s hair?
We know that if a man
does not deliberately cut his hair, it will grow long. The “nature” Paul is
mentioning therefore cannot be “biological” nature, for that kind of nature
does not teach anything regarding the propriety of human hair-length. While the
verse may be somewhat obscure in its English translation, if we understand the
word Paul uses there, and the culture of the society, it helps to clarify his
meaning.
The word for “nature”
in 1Corinthians 11:14 is the Greek term phusis. While it can mean
“the ordinary operation of the universe,” as would approach our meaning in
common English today, it also has the meaning, “a mode of feeling and acting
which by long habit has become nature.” In addition, it takes the meaning “distinctive
native peculiarities, natural characteristics.” [Strong’s entry for 5449]
Now, this makes a lot
more sense contextually. Here is where the “culture” part does come in. In the
city of Corinth, there was a temple of Aphrodite, and the cult prostitutes were
both male and female. In the “Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society,”
Catherine Kroeger states, “Men wore veils and long hair as signs of their
dedication to the god, while women used the unveiling and shorn hair to
indicate their devotion. Men masqueraded as women, and in a rare vase painting
from Corinth a woman is dressed in satyr pants equipped with the male organ.”
[1]
It is obviously a “shame”
for a man to wear long hair, if long hair signified that he belonged to a group
of male prostitutes in service to a pagan deity. But now understanding that, we
see that Paul is taking up the issue of what the length of hair means.
This is established as fact, when we read his very next statement: “But if a woman
have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering.”
(verse 15)
We see that here again
Paul draws a sharp distinction between the spiritual role of males and females.
In terms of salvation, and legitimate standing before the Almighty, men and
women are the same. In terms of practices that distinguish them one from
another, they are different. This is hardly a new teaching, and the principle
is as old as the Mosaic Law: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth
unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all that do so
are abomination unto Yahweh thy God.” (Deuteronomy 22:5)
Now about this
principle we have our “second witness.” There is to be a clear difference
between the outward appearance of males and females. The reasons are eternally
valid, for while it is partly due to what long or short hair represents to the
current society, it also has deeper, theological meaning, and an audience of
invisible students.
Now, if “long” hair
(and the word in Greek is komao, which means specifically “long hair”)
is glory to a woman, then we can easily understand Paul’s earlier statement in
verse 6, that if she is not “covered” she may as well be shorn, or completely
bald. Again, if “long” hair is the glory of woman, just as Christ is the glory
of man, (verse 7) then any other kind of hair would not serve the same purpose
– and the woman with short hair, who is indistinguishable from a man, may as
well be bald. From Ms. Kroeger’s quote above, we see that an unveiled woman who
was bald demonstrated the same pagan devotion as a long-haired man, and
so Paul’s reasoning is consistent.
What settles the
argument is Paul’s statement that “her hair is given her for a covering.” Those
in favor of artificial coverings in addition to long hair attempt to explain
this statement by pointing out (correctly) that Paul uses two words for
covering in this chapter. In the first instance, when he says, “let her be
covered” at the end of verse 6, he uses the word katakalupto. When he
says that a woman’s long hair is given to her as a “covering” he uses the term peribolaion.
It does not take any
knowledge of Greek to realize that, despite the fact that one word is a verb
and the other a noun, these two expressions do not come from the same root. It
is this very difference, however, that establishes the idea securely that the “long
hair” is the “covering” Paul says women should have. The first word is from a
general term for “covering,” and the second word is a specific one for a
veil or mantle. In other words, Paul points out that something should “cover” a
woman’s head, and in verse 15 he indicates that the “long hair” is a specific
tool that fills the very purpose of a covering item.
In other words, Paul
reasons from a generality to a specific, and it would be as if one were to say,
“This table needs to be covered. I will give you this roll of material
as a tablecloth.” The purpose of the specific item provided is to
fulfill the general need, and the context points it out as the obvious function
of the object despite the fact that “covering” and “tablecloth” have no similar
etymology.
What truly
settles the argument, however, is the language Paul employs for the function of
the peribolaion. He says, “her hair is given her for a covering.” The
word “for” is a very interesting Greek word: anti. Christians know this
four-letter element as a prefix very well, as from the term “antichrist.” The
meaning has not changed in its journey from Greek to English. The anti-Christ
is the being who sets himself up in the place of Christ, that is to say, instead
of Christ. This is the precise and only meaning of the term allowed by its
setting, and it is so used here. The long hair (and it must be long in order to
fulfill its symbolic function) is given “instead of” a veil or mantle.
Now, if it is true that
komao (long hair) is given to a woman instead of a veil, as 1Corinthians 11:15
literally and accurately states, then Peter and Paul’s other statements about
women’s hair make sense. It would not matter how the hair was arranged, braided
with gold or strung with pearls, if it were covered up in the presence of other
Christians. It would also explain why Eve, the first wife of the first man, was
provided with a coat of skins. (Genesis 3:21) The word for coat is kathoneth,
or “a long shirt-like garment usually of linen.” [Strong’s entry on 03801]
Nothing is stated of a covering for Eve’s head, although it would be
unreasonable to claim she did not pray.
It may be said of the
New Testament references, however, that the example encouraged by Peter and
Paul was for non-Christians; therefore the woman should be covered when in
Church meetings, but not necessarily at other times, since it specifies times
of prayer and prophecy.
Today, that might be a
reasonable objection to make. In the early days of Christianity, however, the
specialized culture of the early Church is plainly stated in the Book of Acts. “And
they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from
house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.”
(Acts 2:46) And again, “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they
ceased not to teach and preach Yahshua the Christ.” (Acts 5:42) While not
conclusive by themselves, the statements of Peter and Paul, combined with the
close associations of the Christians until the persecution by Rome broke out,
lend strong contextual support to what the verses of 1Corinthians 11 already
state with a clarity difficult to controvert.
Finally, this article
began by pointing out that this single-witness doctrine, even if it did teach
artificial head coverings, (which our study has revealed is not the case) would
still not be suitable for establishing a “test of fellowship” dogma. This is
exactly the manner in which Paul ends his discussion of the topic. Before
moving on to another issue of the Corinthian Church, he writes, “But if any man
seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”
(verse 16)
The word for “contentious”
means “liking strife or arguments.” If anyone continued to raise objections
about head coverings, Paul writes that the custom of the church thus far should
be sufficient to settle the matter, even if his overt explanations that long
hair is anti-veil in women does not satisfy everyone. It is hard to
imagine anyone in the Corinthian Church continuing to cause disputes over this
matter after Paul’s statements, and indeed we find that by the time he wrote
the second letter to Corinth he was able to say that though he had written “out
of much affliction” because he was not sure how his words would be received, he
was able now to thank the Almighty for the triumph of his audience’s knowledge
and faith. (2Corinthians 2:4-14)
Two thousand years
later, we continue to find people who are “contentious” about this issue. The
good news is that we do have a definitive answer from the apostle, and we
further have the doctrine of “liberty” coming through very clearly. There is
certainly nothing wrong with wearing a head covering, but there is
nothing wrong with not wearing one either if the symbol of long hair is
maintained “because of the angels.” There are certainly no societal reasons for
a dogma on either side of this particular fence and, if the Scriptures are
correctly understood, there are no spiritual or theological reasons either.
May Yahweh continue to
bless and guide His people, as we approach the perfection of His dear Son.
David.
1 – Frequently Asked
Questions About the Bible and Homosexuality,
http://home.earthlink.net/~patrickmire/frequently_asked_questions_about_the_bible_and_homosexuality.htm
[Author’s note: I do not endorse the conclusions of the above website, I use it
strictly for the historical reference regarding the fertility cults of ancient
Palestine]
Home | Contact | More Articles