Head coverings, or veils?

[FollowingHim]

While considering head coverings on another thread, I had a bit of an epiphany. We have a range of views on this, it is a contentious issue. Many people believe a woman should wear a head-covering during prayer, many others believe her hair is her covering so this is unnecessary. Most people believe a man should take off his hat when praying, while some believe he should put on a prayer shawl as per Jewish tradition. It's a very contentious issue, and one on which I had not been able to make up my own mind, because every perspective seemed lacking somehow.

The problem may simply be that we're reading English bibles and looking at it from a Western traditional mindset. Because the words used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 do not necessarily refer to hats.

Paul says that a man cannot "kata" (v4) or "katakalyptō" (v7) his head during prayer, and that a woman must.
kata (G2596): "a preposition denoting motion or diffusion or direction from the higher to the lower" (Thayer's)
katakalypto (G2619): "to cover up ... to veil or cover one's self ... one's head" (Thayer's). "to cover wholly, i.e. veil: - cover, hide." (Strong's)
These words do not necessarily state that any form of hat is banned. They appear rather to be speaking about completely covering, ie veiling, from the top of the head to the bottom.

If so, this would mean a man would be able to wear a hat, but couldn't wear a veil - but a women had to veil her face during prayer, which instantly brings up images of Muslim women in burqas. Don't panic, read on! Here's 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, from the KJV, but using the word "veil". For me, this is the first time I've ever read this passage and had it all make perfect sense, and the conclusion is incredible.

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 veiled, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head unveiled dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. For a man indeed ought not to veil 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 unveiled? 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 veil.

But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

I've always struggled with the apparent contradiction of a woman's hair being given to her for a covering, but if she doesn't wear a covering her hair should be chopped off, so her hair doesn't actually work as a covering. That just never made sense to me. But if her hair is given to her as a veil, not a hat, then suddenly it all fits together.

Here's my paraphrase of what Paul's point might be:

• The man is the image / reflection of God, so his face should be displayed when talking to God.
• The woman is the image / reflection of her man, so her face should be veiled when talking to God out of respect to the fact that she is under the authority of a man. (As both are able to talk directly to God, showing both are equally valued by Him, we must remember that this really is a very secondary piece of minor symbolism).
• Because a man's face is to be clearly visible, he should have short hair that does not block his face.
• If a woman has long hair, this is a glory to her, because it is given to her to use as a veil (and naturally hangs as such). By implication, if she has short hair, she should veil her face in some other manner during prayer.
• If a woman refuses to use her long hair as a veil, she may as well have it chopped off because she's wasting the gift God has given her. If she doesn't want it chopped off, let her use it as a veil.
• But it's not important enough to argue about, as it's all voluntary symbolism of voluntary submission.

For men, this would mean they're welcome to follow either Christian or Jewish tradition by having bare heads or wearing a head covering like a prayer shawl - provided they don't veil their face or have long hair that falls over their face.
For women, this would mean they don't need to wear hats or veils at all, provided they have long hair that naturally falls over their face when they bend forward in prayer. If they do not they may wish to consider an alternative veil for their face when praying (something that would look weird in Western culture but would possibly have sounded quite normal and common-sense to Paul's Middle-Eastern audience).

So this starts off sounding scary and ends up being about the least "legalistic" interpretation of any.

A few parallels to consider, with both scripture and tradition:

• Moses in Exodus 34:33-35. He wore a veil on his face when he was speaking to the children of Israel. But he deliberately removed the veil whenever he spoke to YHWH! He then replaced the veil when he left the tent where he prayed and returned to speak to the people. If Paul is talking about veils, all he is doing is saying "do exactly what Moses did - don't cover your face when speaking to YHWH".
• One key Hebrew word for "veil", tsammah (H6777), is interchangeably translated as "locks" (of hair) in the KJV and "veil" in other translations and concordances. This strongly supports Paul's statement that a woman's hair IS her veil. See Song of Songs 4:1,3; 6:7 and Isaiah 47:2.
  
• Women traditionally veil their faces when marrying. This signifies that they are not available to anyone, but only reveal themselves to their husband. We see this:
  - In Scripture (Rebecca in Genesis 24:65, Solomon's wife in Song of Songs 4:1,3; 5:7; 6:7)
  - In modern Middle-Eastern culture (generally Islamic, however they are preserving an older tradition that pre-dates that religion).
  - Symbolically in modern Western culture, where brides to this day veil their face when walking up the aisle to their husband, only allowing him to unveil them.
• The veil symbolises their husband's protection over them and exclusive possession of them, and the removal of a veil is used prophetically in scripture to symbolise the removal of YHWH's protection (e.g. Isaiah 25:7, 47:2).

The more I ponder this the more parallels I see, but I better stop somewhere!

I'm unclear on whether 1 Corinthians 11 should be considered to apply to all women, or only to married women - but given most young unmarried conservative women have long hair anyway it doesn't really make much practical difference. I could also have this all very wrong somewhere, and would welcome your thoughts on it.

 

[windblown]

I'm glad you started a new thread on this topic as it is obviously one of my favorites! As you stated in your previous post, YHWH commanded male headcovering for mourning. Can you provide the reference for this direct command? I can't seem to find it. (Could this be the "traditions" that Paul referenced in 1 Cor. 11:2?)

Novel interpretation of this controversial chapter indeed.
But using this take, what say you of women of African descent? Their hair does not "hang" or "fall" forward in head-bowed prayer position. What if you're driving and can't bow your head? Should women never wear ponytails then? What of the elderly ladies? To me this interpretation seems fraught with just as many "legalities" as any other interpretation might have.

What's your opinion on why a separate word for covering is used in vs. 15 "her hair given to her for a covering (peribolaion)?"

Ultimately, Paul does say "judge for yourself." And, in my opinion, wraps it up with neatly with "you can argue about it all you want but don't say you learned something different from us!"

(PS On the other thread, I had to giggle. When I think of someone reading scripture with their modern glasses on, I wouldn't usually expect the reader to take up a practice that is almost completely obsolete to the culture around them!)

 

[windblown]

Moses in Exodus 34:33-35. He wore a veil on his face when he was speaking to the children of Israel. But he deliberately removed the veil whenever he spoke to YHWH! He then replaced the veil when he left the tent where he prayed and returned to speak to the people. If Paul is talking about veils, all he is doing is saying "do exactly what Moses did - don't cover your face when speaking to YHWH".

Was this a command? Did he not wear the face veil for the people's sake because the glory of the LORD was too much for the Israelites to look upon? Obviously God didn't have to be shielded from the reflection of His own glory. Wouldn't that mean that men should veil their faces all the time except when speaking with God? Now that's a fun mental picture. (Besides Paul does not say be imitators of Moses, he specifically says be imitators of Christ in vs. 1.)

One key Hebrew word for "veil", tsammah (H6777), is interchangeably translated as "locks" (of hair) in the KJV and "veil" in other translations and concordances. This strongly supports Paul's statement that a woman's hair IS her veil. See Song of Songs 4:1,3; 6:7 and Isaiah 47:2.

For me this is quite a stretch as it is only used 4 times?? (just from my reading the lexicon on Biblehub.com...I am frequently wrong) 3 of them from Solomon saying what beauty can be found within the locks/behind the veil. The Isaiah reference seems even more clear that it as an extra article to be removed as he then says to uncover your thigh and leg.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I believe that the hair issue is ancillary to Paul's main point. He's using it as supporting evidence for the main point that men shouldn't pray with their head covered and women should.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Their hair does not "hang" or "fall" forward in head-bowed prayer position.

I also have a question sort of pursuant to this. Luke 18:13 has the publican refusing to look up during prayer, with the inference that it was normal to do so. And in John 17:1 Jesus himself looks up while praying. So if a woman is using her hair as a covering, may she only pray with her head bowed, with the heads-up eyes-up reserved for men who are the image of God? My wife, having straight and gravity-oriented hair, is not veiled if she looks up.

Was this a command? Did he not wear the face veil for the people's sake because the glory of the LORD was too much for the Israelites to look upon?

Whatever else it was, I believe it was also an anti-type for Jesus who spoke mostly in parables to people who were not prepared to hear the plain truth.

 

[FollowingHim]

I thought you'd have a lot to say @windblown!

As you stated in your previous post, YHWH commanded male headcovering for mourning. Can you provide the reference for this direct command?

No, he did not command male headcovering for mourning, I didn't say that he did. He commanded male headcovering for priests in Exodus 28, with the death penalty if they failed to wear these and their other ritual clothing during temple service. It was traditional to also cover the head for mourning, but that's only a side-note. My primary point is that he commanded male headcoverings for priests, so if Paul were banning head coverings for men he would be forbidding what YHWH had previously required on pain of death. Is this consistent with YHWH being the same yesterday, today and forever?

But using this take, what say you of women of African descent? Their hair does not "hang" or "fall" forward in head-bowed prayer position.

I may be wrong that the hair is supposed to form a natural veil. It may be that a woman is expected to take active steps to veil herself in some manner. Long hair could be a blessing simply because it means she always has something close to hand to use as a veil, rather than naturally becoming one of its own accord (thanks @Slumberfreeze for your points on that too).

What's your opinion on why a separate word for covering is used in vs. 15 "her hair given to her for a covering (peribolaion)?"

The previous verses are talking about the act of covering, ("kata" or "katakalyptō"). Verse 15 is the first and only time the passage is talking about an actual item of clothing to use to cover herself with, hence the different word. And the definition of this word is very clear:
Peribolaion (G4081): "something thrown around one, i.e. a mantle, veil:—covering, vesture." (Strong's), "a covering thrown around, a wrapper ... a mantle ... a veil" (Thayer's).
The word is derived from periballō meaning "to throw all around" as when a robe is wrapped all around someone, or when a city is surrounded by a pallisade (bank). It does not mean to cover over the top of something, but to completely enclose it from the sides.
In other words, "her hair is given to her for <something to wrap around herself>". Something wrapped around the head and face is a veil.

Was this a command? Did he not wear the face veil for the people's sake because the glory of the LORD was too much for the Israelites to look upon?

No, Moses wore a veil because the people asked him to. He didn't have to wear it. However he deliberately removed it whenever speaking to YHWH. I take from this that it didn't matter what he wore when walking around the camp, but whenever he spoke to YHWH (ie prayed) he knew he had to have his face uncovered. Which is exactly what Paul later commanded (according to the interpretation I have suggested here). It is Moses' uncovering with YHWH that matters, not his covering with the people. We have no record of Moses being commanded to act in this way, but it is consistent with Paul's later instructions.

(PS On the other thread, I had to giggle. When I think of someone reading scripture with their modern glasses on, I wouldn't usually expect the reader to take up a practice that is almost completely obsolete to the culture around them!)

Just because something is an old tradition that has now fallen out of favour, does not mean it is the original. For instance, being a Catholic nun has fallen out of favour, any woman who decides to be a Catholic nun is taking up a practice that is almost completely obsolete to the culture around them. That does not mean they are right to become a Catholic nun, because that is actually a tradition of man that originated after Christ, flourished for many centuries, then has fallen out of favour.

However, a woman who thinks "I want to devote my life to Christ", and reads of nuns who did great works, could very easily then decide "To devote my life to Christ I need to become a nun, because their lives are by definition devoted to Christ". What she is doing is looking at the Biblical concept of "devoting my life to Christ" through the glasses of a more recent tradition (Catholic nuns), and thinking she must adopt that tradition in order to fulfil the Biblical principle. She may not consider that the tradition itself may have been an incorrect interpretation of scripture.

In the same way, just because women wearing headscarves is an old tradition that has fallen out of favour, does not mean it is the correct and original one. If a woman reads in scripture "women must cover their heads", then sees that in past generations women did cover their heads with headscarves and this has fallen out of favour, it is only natural for her to adopt that tradition. However, what she is doing is looking at the Biblical concept of "covering" through the glasses of the tradition she understands (headscarves), and thinking she must adopt that tradition in order to fulfil the Biblical principle. What if the tradition itself was an incorrect interpretation to start with?

We must base our thinking firmly on the words of scripture and use sound exegesis to then derive our behaviour from that, rather than taking a particular practice, however ancient, and reading that into scripture (eisegesis). Western gentiles do this (men removing hats, women with headscarves). Messianic Jews do this also (male head covering with kippah and tallit). Christian converts from Islam will have yet another perspective. All these traditions are ancient - but all are contradictory. Each reader of scripture thinks "what did people do in the past?", naturally sees what they already think is "old practice", and reads this into scripture often without even realising they are doing so. We have to look beyond all these traditions and start purely from the text alone in order to build up a clear view of what Paul is actually speaking about.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'm confused Samuel, are you saying that 1 Corinthians 11 only means that women have to have long hair and men have to have short hair only when praying and that they are allowed to have the opposite hair length of they're not praying? Why wouldn't they just be told to have long Kr short hair? Why is the praying and prophesying thrown in there? It only confuses the issue.

 

[lutherangirl]

I thought about head covering about ten years ago, but it wasn't until 2013 that my husband was on board with it. I didn't bug him the whole time about it, but when he got saved five years ago his opinions about modesty changed. Before covering, I started dressing more modest and only wearing my wedding ring and cross necklace. Then I read 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 and found the headcovering movement website. At first I started covering all the time. Then I decided just to cover while I'm praying, at Bible study and church. I find in the Christian community headcovering means different things to different people, and we can't really agree on what kind is best or if the hair is the covering. Within the Jewish and Muslim communities the styles seem to be more in line with their culture practices as well as their religion. If what Samuel is saying about Christians veiling their faces as well, I'm sure we would be hard pressed to find a photo of this Christian example. I'm not aware of any early pictures of nuns covering their faces with veils.

 

[lutherangirl]

I logged off to finish my Bible study for class which is on Thursday and was referred to 2 Corinthians 3:18 for the homework in the study. I thought it was very appropriate to post for this discussion: "And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lords glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." So, through Christ, we are sanctified and the veil Moses wore was Old Covenant.

 

[FollowingHim]

Please note that I am just sharing something I've been pondering over the last couple of days, to get people thinking and digging into scripture. I'm not trying to define how everyone should act or say anyone else is doing it wrong. Nor have I required Sarah to don a face veil! So from that calm perspective of "come let us reason together":

@ZecAustin, if you can find a way to change hair length back and forth at will, patent it, you'll soon be rich.
I'm just trying to make sense of the statement that a woman's hair is given to her as a covering. What do you understand that statement to mean? In what way is the hair a functional covering? As far as I can see you appear to be entirely dismissing this statement on the excuse that it is purely figurative.

@lutherangirl, I just had a hunt for examples of Christians or pre-Yeshua Jews wearing veils, and although it is obviously not as common as a headscarf there are plenty of examples.

• Suzanna, in the apocryphal book of Daniel chapter 13, sometimes printed separately as the book of Suzanna, v31-33: "Now Susanna was a very delicate woman, and beauteous to behold. And these wicked men commanded to uncover her face, (for she was covered) that they might be filled with her beauty. Therefore her friends and all that saw her wept."
• Albanian Greek Orthodox women traditionally wore veils.
• Some orders of Roman Catholic nuns still wear veils. Here's a page full of photos of them, with a fascinating explanation of the history, quoted here:

  Before the Vatican II Council the trademark of Catholic nuns used to be their habit, consisting of flowing robes and veils that covered the entire body, leaving only the face and hands visible.
  
  But the design of the habits of the many orders of nuns has varied over the ages. During various times in history it has been practices among some orders to have their nuns to also veil their faces. Today this tradition is very uncommon and only a few orders mandates this practice.
  
  Most of the times the nuns used veils similar to the burqa used by some Muslim women. They used to pull their ordinary veil down to their chins to cover their faces. Some even wore their veils all down to their chests. The nuns did this every time they went outside the convent or had to meet persons from the outside. In 1561 St. Theresa of Avila wrote a letter were she outlined the rules for the convents she intended to start. Among other things,she was very explicit about the use of face veils among her nuns: "There will be no more than fifteen nuns in it, who will practice very strict enclosure, never going out or allowing themselves to be seen without veils covering their faces."
  
  The following is written by Father Kieran Kavanaugh in his introduction to The Collected Works of St. Teresa of Avila: "In one of its religious uses the veil became the sign of consecrated woman. In Teresa's time it caused no surprise or annoyance to see nuns with their faces veiled; this was often done by other women as well when they ventured into the streets."
  
  Over the years several orders of nuns have used different styles of veils to conceal their faces. Elizabeth Kuhns writes in her book ’The Habit’ that some nuns used a hood with only a narrow opening for the eyes. Among some orders of nuns, even niqab-style veils have been used.
  
  In a lithography of the different dresses of Monks and Nuns from the orient, the artist Albert Racinet illustrated habits of several orders. One of them, a Capuchin nun wears a white veil that covers the entire body, similar to a burqa. Another nun from the Bere order is shown both in her indoor dress and how she dresses outside the convent. Indoors her dress is similar to the clothes of ordinary women, her head is covered with a black veil but her face is uncovered. When the Bere nuns went outside the convent rules mandated that they should put on roubends, a type of coif that also covered the lower part of the face.
  
  In Albania some orders of Christian orthodox nuns has been using veils to cover their mouths. This has also been the practice of ordinary Christian women in this part of the world while Moslem women usually covered the whole face up to the eyes.
  
  During Biblical times face veiling was very common among women in Palestine as in the rest of this region. In some countries it was even mandated for free women while slave women were compelled to show their faces. For that reason it is highly likely that the mother of Jesus used to veil her face, just like the rest of the female population in this area.
  
  If the habit of nuns is supposed to imitate the dress of the Virgin Mary, it would be most logical for them to adopt a headdress that also concealed their faces. It seems however most likely that this practice continues to be reserved for only a few strict orders.
  
  To the right there are a number of illustrations to this text. Most of the images are authentic photographs of nuns with veiled faces, some are historical artwork and some are modern attempts to reconstruct historical habits. Click on any image to see a larger version and a short description.

• And Western Christian women have commonly worn not only white veils at their wedding, but also black veils at funerals, I've often seen this including by my own grandmother.

If Paul is requiring men to have unveiled faces, then 2 Corinthians 3:18 aligns with it perfectly given it was written by a man (Paul).

I do agree that most illustrations show that it was certainly traditional for Christian women to wear wrapped headscarves with the face visible. However please note that I am not at all suggesting that Paul is requiring a woman to always have her face veiled, the text doesn't say that at all. Traditional wrapped headscarves function perfectly well to just cover the hair, or to be drawn up when desired to cover the face also. If Paul is saying that during prayer a woman should veil her face (and I stress the word "if"), a traditional wrapped headscarf would be the perfect tool for the job, with the hair itself being a backup if such a scarf is not available. So women would tend to be pictured in such a headscarf even if they had the habit of veiling the face during prayer.

 

[FollowingHim]

This is an interesting study on the dress habits of Jewish women at the time of Christ, that indicates full veiling was actually common practice:

As for Jewish women, there is clear evidence that in the first century they covered their heads not only for prayer but whenever they were outside of their own home. It is said that some Jewish women kept themselves covered at all times. In public, they not only covered their heads, but the lower part of their faces as well. For the women this was a matter of morals, and a religious duty, not merely a matter of style or convenience. Joachim Jeremias describes the Jewish custom.

Eastern women take no part in public life. This was true of Judaism in the time of Jesus, in all cases where Jewish families faithfully observed the Law. When the Jewess of Jerusalem left her house, her face was hidden by an arrangement of two head veils, a head-band on the forehead with bands to the chin, and a hairnet with ribbons and knots, so that her features could not be recognized. It was said that once, for example, a chief priest in Jerusalem did not recognize his own mother when he had to carry out against her the prescribed process for a woman suspected of adultery. Any woman who went out without this headdress, i.e., without her face being hidden, committed such an offence against good taste that her husband had the right—and indeed the duty—to put her away from him, and was under no obligation to pay the sum of money to which, on divorce, the wife had a right by virtue of the marriage contract. There were even women so strict that they did not once uncover their head in the house, women like Qimhit, who, it was said, saw seven sons admitted to the high priesthood, which was regarded as divine reward for her extreme propriety: 'May it [this and that] befall me if the beams of my house have ever seen the hair of my head.' Only in her wedding procession was a bride seen with uncovered head, and then only if she were a virgin, not a widow. (12)

Philo of Alexandria (who lived from 20 b.c. to a.d. 50) in his treatise The Special Laws gives an interesting comment about the significance of the Jewish woman's headcovering. Regarding the procedure followed by priests who examined women accused of adultery (cf. Numbers 5:18) he writes, "And the priest shall take the barley and offer it to the woman, and shall take away from her the head-dress on her head, that she may be judged with her head bare, and deprived of the symbol of modesty, which all those women are accustomed to wear who are completely blameless." (13) The Greek word translated "modesty" here is αιδους, the genitive of αιδως (aidos), for which we have no exact equivalent in modern English. It denotes an attitude of humility and a capacity to feel shame, in a good sense, as opposed to shamelessness or impudence. In the writings of ancient moralists this quality of αιδως (or its Latin equivalent verecundia) was often mentioned as being one of the most important feminine virtues. The same word is used by Paul in his instruction concerning women's clothing in 1 Timothy 2:9, where it is translated "shamefastness" in the KJV. But it should not be taken for granted that Jews in general attached any such definite symbolical meaning to the headcovering. Probably most Jews did not feel any need for a symbolical interpretation of the custom, and would have given it no more thought than they gave to any other article of dress.

Relevant footnotes:
12. Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), pp. 359-360. Of course the extreme propriety observed by Qimhit should not be seen as typical, and we may assume that Jewish women used headcoverings not in some legalistic spirit but simply as a matter of custom, and within the bounds of common sense. Jeremias goes on to say, "There is no indication that the custom of wrapping up the head was observed as strictly in the country as in the town." (p. 362) For more detailed discussion and references see Strack-Billerbeck, and Louis M. Epstein, Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism (New York: KTAV, 1967), pp. 36-41. It should also be noted that the custom was not confined to Jews. It may be described as an Eastern custom. Dio Chrysostom (a.d. 40-112) in one of the discourses preserved in his Orationes mentions that in the city of Tarsus in Asia Minor there was in his day a custom "still in force" as a remnant of the "orderliness and sobriety" of former days: "a convention regarding feminine attire, a convention which prescribes that women should be so arrayed and should so deport themselves when in the street that nobody could see any part of them, neither of the face nor of the rest of the body, and that they themselves might not see anything off the road." He adds that "they, like surveyors, can see more keenly with but one of their eyes" (Loeb edition, vol. 3., p. 319). The editors of the Loeb edition suggest in a footnote that "This prescription may have been due to the oriental element at Tarsus," by which they probably mean the Jews. From Dio Chrysostom's remarks it appears that the women of Tarsus generally veiled themselves by pulling a headcovering diagonally across the face, covering the nose, mouth, and one eye. There is good reason to think that an uncovered head was associated with prostitution in Assyria as early as the 15th century b.c. The Middle Assyrian Laws preserved on clay tablets from the time of Tiglath-pileser (12th century b.c.) contain a law requiring all Assyrian women to cover their heads in public (with "a shawl or a robe or a mantle"), with the exception of prostitutes, who are forbidden to cover their heads (see the text of the law in Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 183).

13. The Works of Philo, translated by C.D. Yonge. New Updated Edition, edited by David M. Scholer (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1993), p. 599. The Greek text, as edited by Leopold Cohn, is as follows: ο δε ιερευς λαβων προτεινετω τη γυναικι και τουπικρανον αφελων, ιν' επικρινηται γεγυμνωμενη τη κεφαλη, το της αιδους περιηρημενη συμβολον, ω ταις εις απαν αναιτιοις εθος χρησθαι (De Special. Legibus, Book III, paragraph 56). We observe that Philo, like the Apostle Paul, interprets the headcovering as a symbol. Louis Ginzberg gives a legendary Jewish explanation from later Rabbinic sources, such as the Bereshit Rabbah, in which a Rabbi asserts that shame for Eve's sin is the reason: "The very differences between the sexes in garb and social forms go back to the origin of man and woman for their reasons. Woman covers her hair in token of Eve's having brought sin into the world; she tries to hide her shame; and women precede men in a funeral cortege, because it was woman who brought death into the world. And the religious commands addressed to women alone are connected with the history of Eve." (The Legends of the Jews, vol. 1, p. 67; and see vol. 5, pp. 89-90, note 45, for references to the Rabbinic sources.) Although this differs significantly from St. Paul's explanation in 1 Corinthans 11:2-16, it is notable that the Rabbinic sources connect the practice with Eve, as does Paul.

The author does stress that the word "κατακαλυπτω" in 1 Corinthians 11 "does however mean thoroughly covered. It cannot refer to ornamental or token headpieces".

The article also goes into detail on Roman, Greek and Egyptian dress customs. It suggests also that the Corinthian custom may have included head coverings, but less strictly. Paul's instructions may therefore be encouraging the women coming into the church from a range of surrounding cultures to be modest by wearing the sort of full coverings (both head and face) that were considered conservatively modest dress at the time anyway in Jewish and contemporary culture.

The author also points out that pagan religions included women serving in temples with their heads uncovered, and Paul may be instructing Christian women to keep their usual headcoverings on during worship, not remove them like the pagans.

 

[lutherangirl]

I'm not defensive at all about the veil or headcovering issue. If my posts came off that way, I apologize. It seems from the articles that you found nuns did veil and even have changed their styles throughout the centuries. I know some nuns who have short hair and dress in modest normal clothing with no cover unless they are in worship. I guess what I'm expressing from my experience in the Christian world the headcovering styles have changed over the years and cause divisions over who is doing it correctly. To me it isn't a salvation issue and, since there or so many "what did Paul actually mean" and "because of the angels" meaning in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, I can see why Pastors just don't want to worry too much about this anymore since only God can know the heart. It is like the Pharisees all dressed up, but their hearts weren't in the right place. For me personally, I choose to use a cover that doesn't stick out to much from my upbringing and draw too much attention to adhere to at least of some of what I think Paul was writing about.

 

[windblown]

Gah! I just lost my reply! Must be a sign...
oh well, here goes again...

Okay, so you maintain that the "mantle or cloak" is a face veil? Even if you define the words cover/uncover as "veil" I still don't understand the jumping right to face veil! And your "tsammah" is indeed talking about a veil over the hair. The other examples used for face veiling don't carry that much weight for me: Tamar disguising herself as a prostitute (!!) and Rebekah (jewish bride...modern bride...traditions of men). Moses is the only example of face veiling/unveiling for "prayer" which still seems a huge stretch for me as he was face to face with God! An anomaly that I don't think was replicated anywhere else in the Bible..?? Paul uses the word head again and again. I don't think there are various other definitions to dig up there.

I'm just trying to make sense of the statement that a woman's hair is given to her as a covering. What do you understand that statement to mean? In what way is the hair a functional covering?

Paul uses this final argument, evidence found from nature itself, in a series of arguments or proofs to back up his instruction to cover/uncover. This was not his thesis and not the same extra covering needed during prayer and prophecy that he describes in his previous instructions. A woman with long hair is glorious! It is indeed a literal covering. (Do you really need examples of this?) And men....eh, not so much.

We have to look beyond all these traditions and start purely from the text alone in order to build up a clear view of what Paul is actually speaking about.

Exactly!

 

[The Revolting Man]

Besides, if its hair then it should have also said that men should be shaven since we're to remove whatever covering it is. On top of that it also says that if women are to be uncovered for prayer then also they should be shaven. So if a woman is going to pray with her head shaved she has to shave her head? It doesn't make sense. Its much simpler and coherent it it is talking about a head covering.

 

[windblown]

Or! If all that is required for men is to have their hair out of their face, why would that have to entail a short haircut? Why not a man bun? Or! How could women's long hair be considered a full coverage face veil unless they were going to go all Cousin It with it?

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Why not a man bun?

Because heaven weeps at man buns

 

[FollowingHim]

Paul uses the word head again and again.

To cover the head, the whole head, requires both to cover the top of the head and to cover the face, which is part of the head.
To cover only the hair just requires a hat.
If Paul had said "a woman who prays with her hair uncovered" I could see your point, but he did not just say hair. He said head. And there is more to a head than just the top bit. It may simply be tradition that causes you to read the word "head" and think "hat".

I take the meaning of "veil" from basic concordance definitions and the meanings of the words these terms are derived from. I am also not alone in this conclusion, as per my references above, it really does seem to be the most sound translation of the Greek the more I ponder it.

 

[Mojo]

I am totally amazed at how long and intense this thread is!
The variety of topics on here never ceases to amaze me! Yet, we find so little contention. Truly a sign of respect for the Word and for fellow believers in Yeshua Hamashiach!!!:bible:<><:cross:

 

[windblown]

You sure gave me something to occupy my brain with for a couple days, lol! I did find one instance where your theory could fit for me...when Paul later tells women not to have braided hair...so anyways, interesting stuff. I've "met" one Christian/Hebrew roots woman who does fully veil as do her daughters starting at age 3. Maybe her husband came to the same conclusion...

 

[NetWatchR]

later tells women not to have braided hair

I think we need to be careful of this. If we cross reference 1 Tim 2:9 with 1 Pet 3:3, they seem to say the same (similar) thing, but if we take the same logic used to say that braided hair is not to be worn, then women must not wear clothes.

Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel

Although the Timothy verse is speaking in direct regards to prayer and the Peter in regards to general everyday appearance, I read both as speaking against women who intentionally get all dolled up when they leave the house. How many church services has one gone to, or seen on the TV, and it looks like a fashion show (Tammy Bakker, anyone)?
A woman's' beauty is from her meek and quiet spirit and good works. But I also don't think anyone would suggest that there's anything wrong with wearing gold. And, this isn't to say that she can't get tarted up if hubby wants to take her out on the town.

The repeating theme I keep in mind when reading the New Testament is this: It's not the What, it's the Why. It's not what you do, it's why you do it. Don't just read what is being said but why it's being said. It's not about the wearing of gold, braided hair or certain clothing; it's why you're doing it.