Christian Debatorial Works | home
Headcoverings
The main Scripture to be cited regarding the issue of headcoverings is:
1 Cor 11:3-10
3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-it is just as though her head were shaved. 6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
NIV
From this passage, we can determine:
1. That men are to pray with their heads uncovered.
2. That women are to pray with their heads covered.
The question is, then, what is this covering?
It seems to be cleared up later in the same chapter:
1 Cor 11:14-16
14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
NIV
So, from this we can conclude that men are to pray / prophesy with short hair while women pray / prophesy with long hair.
This fits well with the remainder of New Testament teachings on how men are to look and dress like men and women are to look and dress like women.
Churches who do insist that Paul was referring to an artificial headcovering make the following points in defense of their interpretation:
(1) The Greek word translated "covering" in verse 15 is peribolaion, a word that is different from and unrelated to katakalupto, the "covering" spoken of in all the previous verses. If Paul had meant that the hair is the only covering a woman needs, he would have used the word katakalupto -- the term he uses all six times that the "covering" is mentioned in the preceding verses. But Paul does not write "her hair is given her for a katakalupto." He uses a totally different word, peribolaion, when he tells us the hair is a "covering." Paul switches to another term for a reason: He wants to make sure we do not confuse the woman's natural covering, her hair (peribolaion), with the scarf or shawl (katakalupto) which she willingly places on her head.
This fact becomes even more apparent when we look at the meanings and uses of these two different Greek words. Katakalupto, the word that refers to the covering a woman places on her head, is composed of the prefix kata-('down") and kalupto ("cover"). This is exactly what a scarf or shawl does -- it hangs down from the top of the head and covers the woman's hair. Peribolaion, the word that refers to the woman's hair as a natural "covering," uses the prefix peri- ("around," as in our English word perimeter). The long hair functions as a frame that flows around the perimeter or border of the woman's face. The word peribolaion appears only twice in the New Testament, but it appears twelve times in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible which was used and quoted by New Testament writers.
It is significant that the word peribolaion is used in Deut.22:12 to refer to the tallit, the four-cornered, fringed cloak worn by men. Paul was familiar with the Greek Septuagint, and most certainly was aware of the use of peribolaion to refer to the tallit. So when Paul writes that the woman's long hair is given to her anti (literally, "instead of") peribolaion, he is telling us this: the woman is given long hair to flow around her head and shoulders instead of the peribolaion / tallit, the four-cornered, fringed cloak that men are commanded to wear.
Therefore, Paul is not saying in 1 Cor.11:15 that the hair is the only covering a woman needs. On the contrary, he is saying that the hair is not a substitute for the katakalupto (scarf or shawl), but it is given to the woman to wear instead of the peribolaion / tallit. This verse also points out that Yahweh uses the woman's naturally long hair to show that He expects the woman to cover her head with a scarf or shawl, and He uses the man's absence of long hair to show that the man should not be covered with a scarf or shawl hanging down over his head like a woman. This is why Paul appeals to nature in the preceding verse ("Does not even nature itself teach you?").
The problem here is that this arguement is conjecture, as we do not truly know why Paul chose a different word for covering in V.15. It would be unlikely, however, that he placed such a seemingly clear definition of the covering in V.15 and hide away the true meaning of his teaching in Greek linguistics.
(2) A second proof that the hair is not the only covering a woman needs is found in the statement Paul makes in verse six: "For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off." If Paul meant that the woman's only headcovering were the hair itself, this verse would be saying, "If a woman does not have hair on her head, let her also have her hair cut off."
It is linguistically impossible to say that the woman's headcovering is nothing more than her hair. If the hair were the only "covering," then an "uncovered" woman would be a woman who already had her "hair cut off." An already hairless woman cannot be commanded to have her hair cut off. It would be like saying, "Let the bald man get a haircut" or "Let the beardless man shave his beard."
What verse six means is this: If the woman refuses to wear a scarf or shawl, she should also remove the natural covering, her hair. In other words, she should wear both coverings or none at all.
Not so if Paul meant the absense of long hair (as opposed to no hair altogether). In which case, Pauls' meaning in V.6 is that if a woman does not let her hair grow long, but cuts it short, like a man's hair, then it would be just as well for her to shave it off altogether.
(3) One final proof which shows that the headcovering is more than the hair is the fact that women did, indeed, wear scarves or shawls on their heads in Biblical times. The Encyclopedia Judaica tells us that "the general custom was to appear in public, and in the presence of strange men, with covered hair."
We know from both the Bible and the Talmud that this is true. In Numbers 5:18, we are told that a woman suspected of being unfaithful to her husband was to have her head uncovered by the priest. This tells us that a woman's normal clothing in Biblical times included a headcovering, for how else could the priest "uncover the woman's head"? We see from this passage that a woman's uncovered head marks her as one suspected of being unfaithful to her husband. Today's modern culture may attach no meaning at all to an uncovered head, but from a Biblical viewpoint, it represents suspicion of unfaithfulness.
This is why Paul says, "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to Yahweh with head uncovered?" (1Cor.11:13). Paul expects the answer to be obvious (at least to those familiar with the meaning of an uncovered head). The woman with an uncovered head, Paul says, "disgraces her head [i.e., her husband]".
The Talmud makes several references to the woman's headcovering, thereby validating its existence. We know that a woman did not go out in public without covering her head (Bereshit Rab.17; Ket.72b). Some devout women, believing that "wives' hair is always covered" (Nash. Ned.30b), wore headcoverings in their homes as well as in public (Yoma 47a; Lev. R.20:11). So important was the headcovering that some rabbis said that blessings should not be uttered in the presence of a bareheaded woman (Ber.24a). According to the Talmud, a man could divorce his wife for "going into public with uncovered head" (Kethubah 7.6). Of course I do not agree that this is grounds for divorce; I quote it simply to show the existence and the importance of the woman's headcovering in the past.
Actually, this arguement defeats itself, as it is supposing that a non-Christian custom from 2000 years ago would necessarily be applied to Christians today, which few would agree is the case. That fact that it was a cultural issue of Pauls' day furthers the point that it is a culturally isolated issue, and need not apply to us today, unless we happen to live in a similar culture with imposed artificial headcoverings on women.
Legalism can creep in on this subject very easily, and in 2 major ways:
1. By forcing women to wear an artificial headcovering at all times during worship services, which the text, even it's most conservative interpretation, does not infer. It is only given in a context of when women are praying / prophesying, and thus cannot be stretched through the entire worship service, especially in congregations which restrict women to silence.
2. By insisting on a definition of how short is short or how long is long.
Ultimately, these fine details should be resolved on a personal basis, not legislated by the church body. Consider:
1 Cor 11:12-13
13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
NIV
While some may say this question is being asked rhetorically, Paul is encouraging us to judge for ourselves on this matter. And, the teaching remains: long hair has been given to woman as a headcovering, not lace, cotton, or silk.
|