• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Head covering

Another thing I noticed is that the word for covering in verse 15 is a different Greek word from what is used previously. I personally don't know enough about Greek to say if that is significant or not... But perhaps others here who understand it better would be able to help with that...
This is true. Just to draw attention to my brief note on this earlier:
the ASV, CJB, NRSV and RSV all use the word "veil" through most of this passage, translating "katakalupto" as "veiled", however here I have also rendered "peribolaion" as "veil" also, which in my mind ties the entire thing together better and is clearer.
Several notable versions, particularly the ASV, use the word "veil" for "katakalupto", I think that shows that this translation is entirely reasonable. The question is around whether in v15 her hair is given to her for a "veil" (peribolaion, G4018).

The Thayers definition of peribolaion is:
περιβόλαιον, περιβολαίου, τό (περιβάλλω), properly, a covering thrown around, a wrapper; in the N. T.
1. a mantle: Hebrews 1:12 (Psalm 101:27 (Ps. 102:27); Ezekiel 16:13; Ezekiel 27:7; Isaiah 59:17; περιβόλαιον βασιλικόν and περιβόλαιον ἐκ πορφύρας, Palaeph. 52, 4).
2. a veil (A. V. a covering): 1 Corinthians 11:15. ((From Euripides down.))
The emphasis is that it is something "thrown around". The definition clearly indicates a cloak for the body or, in the case of the head, a veil. Strongs also states that the primary meaning is something "thrown around". The root word is "periballo" (G4016), meaning something thrown around or put around.

In fact, it's actually a whole lot clearer from the lexicons that this word means "veil", than that katakalupto means "veil". It's one of a couple of valid definitions for katakalupto, but seems the clearest definition of peribolaion.

I used the word "veil" in my modified text in the post above because it is the exact definition given in Thayers lexicon.
 
Just a little knowledge nugget when the letter to Corinth was written Greek men and women from Corinth wore colorful head coverings to identify which pagan god they worshipped. Possibly the reason men were told in Corinth not to cover when worshipping G-d.

This is part of the cultural argument usually used by those who claim it’s not necessary to follow in our culture. From the research I have done this claim was made by one person initially without any evidence or any reliable source being sited and thereafter many have claimed that source as if it were reliable. There is some archaeological evidence to the contrary.

Regardless of the possible truth of that claim no cultural reasons are given by Paul in the passage. The teaching stands on its own separate from culture.
 
Check out (BAS) Biblical Archaeology Society magazine. They had some good articles showing the historical context. I'm not talking about the conform to the culture, the only prostitutes wore veils or only prostitutes went abo6t uncovered naraitives that are used to claim that it's not necessary.

Paul's teachings originate in the Tanahk and he does draw on the rulings of several Rabbis when explaining the reasoning in his letters for modesty in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.

Numbers 5:12-18

12 “Speak to Bnei-Yisrael and say to them: Suppose some man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 and another man has sexual relations with her, but it is hidden from her husband’s eyes and her impurity is not detected. Yet there was no witness against her and she was not caught in the act. 14 Then a spirit of jealousy overcomes him and he is suspicious of his wife, when she is impure. Or a spirit of jealousy overcomes him and he suspects his wife, yet she is not impure.

15 “Then he should take his wife to the kohen. He must also bring a tenth of an ephah of barley flour as an offering for her. He is not to pour oil or put incense on it, because it is an offering for jealousy, a reminder offering drawing attention to guiltiness.

16 “The kohen is to bring her near and have her stand before Adonai. 17 Then the kohen is to take some holy water in a clay jar and take some dust from the floor of the Tabernacle and put it into the water. 18 Then the kohen will have the woman stand before Adonai, loosen the woman’s hair, put into her hands the reminder offering, the offering for jealousy, while in the kohen’s own hands are the bitter waters that bring a curse.

Isaiah 47:2-4

2 Take the millstones and grind flour.
Remove your veil, strip off the skirt,
uncover the leg, cross the rivers.
3 Your nakedness will be uncovered,
and your shame will be exposed.
I will take vengeance,
and will spare no one.
4 Our Redeemer, Adonai-Tzva’ot is His Name,
is the Holy One of Israel.

Genesis 24:65

65 Then she said to the servant, “Who is that man there who is walking in the field—to meet us?”

The servant said, “He is my master.”

So she took the veil and covered herself.

Regardless of the possible truth of that claim no cultural reasons are given by Paul in the passage. The teaching stands on its own separate from cultur

The teaching was given to address culture and educate about modesty. There's always a context in what is being said and what the culture whether it be Jews worshipping G-d as pagans worship there's as in Jerimiahs time or Greeks lack of modesty in Paul's time.

Here's a pretty good article.

http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/10-common-myths-headcovering/
 
I saw this in the Babylonian Talmud Kethuboth 66a. Thought it was interesting and perhaps germane

If a man spat so that the spittle fell upon another person, or uncovered the head of a woman, or removed a cloak from a person he must pay four hundred zuz;17

Also from 66b
Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that R. Johanan b. Zakkai left Jerusalem riding upon an ass, while his disciples followed him, and he saw a girl picking barley grains in the dung of Arab cattle. As soon as she saw him she wrapped herself with her hair and stood before him

I really have no opinion on this but it seems to be more of a veil or whole head covering than just a hair covering. It also seems obvious from the 66b section that the hair itself could be used as a head covering or veil.
 
Just a little knowledge nugget when the letter to Corinth was written Greek men and women from Corinth wore colorful head coverings to identify which pagan god they worshipped. Possibly the reason men were told in Corinth not to cover when worshipping G-d.

I highly doubt this is it; as the practice was universal throughout all the churches. Little historical nuggets like this that explain, or explain away, head-coverings frequently turn out to be wrong.
 
So now that I have been Torah pursuant since March of 2019 I have become even more convinced that long hair is definitely not the covering being spoken about in the passage. Here is why: If long hair during prayer and prophecy is disgracing messiah then every man who has taken a nazarite vow is disgracing messiah while praying and prophesying... this would be a contradiction especially since there are specific examples of Yah actually instructing men (or their parents) to be a nazarite for their entire life.

My stand at this point is that all men should remove their hat and all married women should be covered during prayer and prophesy. And honestly this would even be best practice at many additional times but I cannot support it as being instructed outside of prayer and prophesy.

I think this physical practice is symbolic of the spiritual covering that is a man over his woman and messiah over the man...

I believe this (just as most if not all things in scripture) is something that each man needs to decide for his household and the women in the household should follow his instructions on the matter.

Full disclosure a man whom I consider one of my closest friends does not practice this and that has not affected our friendship at all. So no judgment from me if you men take a different stand.
 
So now that I have been Torah pursuant since March of 2019 I have become even more convinced that long hair is definitely not the covering being spoken about in the passage. Here is why: If long hair during prayer and prophecy is disgracing messiah then every man who has taken a nazarite vow is disgracing messiah while praying and prophesying... this would be a contradiction especially since there are specific examples of Yah actually instructing men (or their parents) to be a nazarite for their entire life.

My stand at this point is that all men should remove their hat and all married women should be covered during prayer and prophesy. And honestly this would even be best practice at many additional times but I cannot support it as being instructed outside of prayer and prophesy.

I think this physical practice is symbolic of the spiritual covering that is a man over his woman and messiah over the man...

I believe this (just as most if not all things in scripture) is something that each man needs to decide for his household and the women in the household should follow his instructions on the matter.

Full disclosure a man whom I consider one of my closest friends does not practice this and that has not affected our friendship at all. So no judgment from me if you men take a different stand.
Obviously you’ve given this some thought, I’d just be careful about using an exception to define the rule. Might consider studying a bit deeper into the Nazarite and their role in Hebrew society.
 
If long hair during prayer and prophecy is disgracing messiah then every man who has taken a nazarite vow is disgracing messiah while praying and prophesying... this would be a contradiction especially since there are specific examples of Yah actually instructing men (or their parents) to be a nazarite for their entire life.
Obviously you’ve given this some thought, I’d just be careful about using an exception to define the rule. Might consider studying a bit deeper into the Nazarite and their role in Hebrew society.
Ezekiel 44 (The Priesthood Restored)

19 When they go out into the outer court where the people are, they are to take off the clothes they have been ministering in and are to leave them in the sacred rooms, and put on other clothes, so that the people are not consecrated through contact with their garments.

20 “‘They must not shave their heads or let their hair grow long, but they are to keep the hair of their heads trimmed. 21 No priest is to drink wine when he enters the inner court. 22 They must not marry widows or divorced women; they may marry only virgins of Israelite descent or widows of priests. 23 They are to teach my people the difference between the holy and the common and show them how to distinguish between the unclean and the clean.

Shaving your head in most cases was a sign of mourning, in the case of a captured woman a kindness to keep her from the pagan custom of pulling out her hair in mourning, or as a dedication to the Father, Growing long hair could make folks think that the Priest was a Nazarite. The Father explained this to Ezekiel. It prevents confusion. A person in mourning and Nazarites had restrictions that a Priest didn't and could confuse people if seen done in a state that could be confused for mourning or under a Nazarite vow.

In the person of the Nazirite, the layman is given a status resembling that of the priest, as he now is "holy to the Lord" (Lev. 21:6; Num. 6:8; cf. Philo, I LA, 249). Actually, in his taboos, he approximates more the higher sanctity of the high priest in that (1) He may not contaminate himself with the dead of his immediate family (Lev. 21:11; Num. 6:7; cf. the ordinary priest, Lev. 21:1–4); (2) For him, as for the high priest, the head is the focus of sanctity (Ex. 29:7; Num. 6:11b. Note the same motive clauses, Lev. 21:12b; Num. 6:7b and compare the dedication of the ordinary priest, Ex. 29:21); (3) He abstains from intoxicants during his term (Num. 6:4)–a more stringent requirement than that of the high priest, whose abstinence, like that of his fellow priests, is limited to the time he is in the Sanctuary (Lev. 10:9).

A more instructive parallel to the Nazirite is the case of the dedication of land to the Sanctuary (Lev. 27:16ff.). Both result from a votive dedication (Lev. 27:16; Num. 6:2), and both dedications are for limited periods, the land reverting to its owner on the Jubilee if not redeemed earlier (implied by Lev. 27:21; Num. 6:13). In both cases the period of dedication can be terminated earlier–the Nazirite's by contamination (Num. 6:9–12), the land's by redemption (Lev. 27:16–19). In the case of premature desanctification, a penalty is exacted: the Nazirite pays a reparation offering (ʾasham) to the Sanctuary, and the owner of the land pays an additional one-fifth of the redemption price to the Sanctuary. If the dedication period is completed, no desanctification penalty is incurred. True, the Nazirite offers up an array of sacrifices together with his hair (Num. 6:13–20), but the sacrifices are mainly for thanksgiving, and the hair, which may not be desanctified, is consumed on the altar. Similarly, dedicated land (so the text of Lev. 27:22–24 implies) reverts to its original owner on the Jubilee without cost. In the case when the Nazirite period is interrupted by contamination, the following ritual is observed: the Nazirite must undergo sprinkling with purificatory waters on the third and seventh day (inferred from Num. 19:14ff.); he shaves his hair on the seventh day; and on the following day three rituals are prescribed: he is purified of his contamination by a purification offering, his hair is reconsecrated and his Nazirite period begins anew, and a reparation offering is brought to expiate his desecration.

The Pharisee believed all of Torah, Ketuvim (Prophets), Ne'vim (writings) were profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: So that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Paul Believed this. 1 Corinthians 11 is about Keeping the traditions Paul Taught, Messiah is the Head of All, and gender roles. It may be as simple as Paul connecting physical appearance to genderole, remember self confessed Pharisee, or it may be that he is drawing from Ezekiel and reprimanding men who are suppose to be priest for not upholding the standard for men given to Ezekiel for his time in the form of a Son of man Prophecy so for our time as well.
 
Back
Top