Summary of Head Coverings and Bible Study
Hopefully, I have explained enough about some of the main points of
Bible study in regards to this subject that you will be able to take the
principles and come to your own conclusions. This happens to be a very
difficult section of Scripture, but we can start with the facts we have
and work our way through the context to figure out the other parts.
We know the following things for sure. There are two Greek words for
‘covering’ used, a verb (katakalupto) and a noun (peribolahyon).
In verse 15, the word ‘covering’ is a noun (peribolahyon) and
this verse in particular means that a woman’s hair is given to her
instead of a cloth covering or garment. The context of the verb
katakalupto in Leviticus 13:45 indicates ‘hair that is loosened,’
so in context with the mentioning of hair in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 it
would best be defined also as loosened hair. Six times hair is
mentioned, including the word ‘shaved.’ Hair seems to be a big subject
in this section of the Word. But there are no specifics (here or
anywhere) telling us size, material, style, age or marital status of the
wearer, and so on, which we would expect to see if a cloth covering is
being discussed, especially since no other place in the Word has any
specifics.
We also know there are a number of other words for
cloth coverings or garments, none of which are used here. In addition,
the language Paul uses is not command language, but is language
indicating ‘practice’ or even ‘tradition.’ Angels are mentioned, but
there is nothing to indicate what is important about angels. We know
that a ‘symbol of authority’ could be just about anything, but in
keeping with how much hair is mentioned it is more likely something to
do with hair. Finally, wearing a cloth on the head was common culturally
at this time, and so was long hair on top of the head.
If we
take these facts and use them as a framework to help us figure out what
we don’t know, we can, I believe, judge the truth. Sort of like using
the weight of evidence to determine truth in a courtroom. These
judgments will not be enough, perhaps, for some people, because they
would just as soon see a cloth covering in this section than something
to do with hair. Still others may need a flat statement more in keeping
with their understanding of English, such as “I am not talking about
cloths on the head” or something similar. The bottom line is, at worst
there is no clear statement in this or any other section of the Word
that women are commanded to wear a cloth on the head. At best, the most
likely explanation for this passage, given the facts we have, is that
Paul is talking about hair styles. Even if we can’t say for certain, the
weight of evidence points to something concerning hair rather than
something concerning a cloth.
After much reading of other’s
opinions and my own study, it is apparent to me that this entire section
is in fact speaking of hair styles rather than a cloth on the head. If
we were to paraphrase this passage, given what we’ve learned, it would
read something like this.
1Be imitators of me, just as I also am of
Christ. 2Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and
hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 3But
I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and
the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.
4Every man who has (long) hair hanging down from his head while
praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5But every woman who has
her hair loosened while praying or prophesying disgraces her head,
for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6For
if a woman does not keep her hair bound, let her also have her hair
cut off; but since it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair
cut off or her head shaved, let her keep her hair up on her head.
7For a man ought not to have long hair, since he is the image and
glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man does not
originate from woman, but woman from man; 9for indeed man was not
created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.
10Therefore the woman ought to have authority on her head, because
of the angels. 11However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent
of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as the woman
originates from the man, so also the man through the woman; and all
things originate from God. 13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for
a woman to pray to God with her hair down? 14Does not even nature
itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to
him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her
hair is given to her instead of a veil. 16But if one is inclined to
be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the
congragations of God. (1 Corinthians 11:1-16, paraphrased by the
author, italics added for clarity; some italics removed.)
It takes significant speculation and imagination to even begin making
connections between what Paul is stating here and a piece of cloth. And
all the speculation and anecdotes in the world, however beneficial or
well intended, do nothing to add to our understanding of this passage.
When we put all of the things we do know together, the picture emerges
that Paul is speaking of hair styles. It could be that he does this
because there were female converts who were former prostitutes and came
in to the assembly with shaved heads, as Tim Hegg suggests, or perhaps
there were converts who didn’t know any better about cultural norms.
So with all this evidence pointing to hairstyles, why would people
teach that the subject is a cloth covering? Why create a command where
none exists? Isn’t it hard enough to follow the specific commands we
have from God in His Word without creating new ones? Several answers to
these questions occur to me from what I have observed. My interpretation
of this behavior is that there are some who don’t know any better, or
who haven’t studied thoroughly. There are others, though, through the
emphasis on the authority of men, who seem to want to reinforce their
status as authority figures over women, and so invent a command for a
cloth head covering. Their concern is more for status than for
discerning and following God’s Word. In addition, they want to transfer
the authority of God’s Word to themselves, through faulty
interpretations.
Asceticism also plays a part. An ascetic is one
who sees that most physical things cause sin, and so live life by giving
up most of the physical pleasures, like a monk in a monastery. Paul
tells us that this type of thing is of no value.
20If you have died with Christ to the
elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the
world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21“Do not handle, do
not taste, do not touch!” 22(which all refer to things destined to
perish with use)—in accordance with the commandments and teachings of
men? 23These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of
wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of
the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence. (Colossians
2:20-23 NASB95)
The ascetic person is trying to come up with more things than just
what God says in order to help them feel more holy (or less sinful). The
ascetic’s commands are the ‘commands of men,’ and therefore are of no
use to enhance or promote godliness. I personally know of three women
who insist on wearing a head cloth who not only are not submissive to
their husbands (because their husbands don’t want them to wear the
cloths, among other things) they are having difficulty submitting to
God’s Word in general.
Asceticism and authority transfer are not
new; because almost from the first moment that God began speaking people
have wanted to transfer the authority of His Word to themselves and
‘feel holier than thou’ in the process. Most who do this are like petty
tyrants, always seeking to add to men’s (or women’s) burdens and not
lifting a finger to help. These ‘Torah tyrants’ want to do things to be
“seen by men” even if it means twisting English or Greek into pretzel
shapes and lifting Scripture out of context to do it. The worst damage,
though, is to God’s Word; for in imposing their own vision over the
plain meaning of the text they cause people to doubt what God says. A
person can’t just read the Word and understand, they must go to the
Torah tyrant in order to get the translation. If the promoters of cloth
head gear for women just left it at ‘this is my opinion’ or ‘I really
like to wear a cloth on my head,’ then it would be fine. They wouldn’t
have very much weight behind their preference though, so it would be
similar to wanting everyone to wear a beanie with a propeller. Cute, or
funny maybe, but not very weighty. This is why the promoters of head
coverings must find justification in God’s Word, so they have some extra
‘oomph’ to back up their preference.
I know I am stating this
very strongly, and it will offend people. I wish I didn’t have to state
it this way, but I have witnessed a large amount of strife and confusion
created by this idea of reading head coverings into the Word. When I
hear a youngster at a baptism testify to how wonderful she has learned
Torah to be (which is a good thing), but how ‘parts of Torah, like the
head covering’ have become an important part of her life, I get alarmed.
Someone taught her that head coverings were a part of Torah, and I can’t
stress enough how wrong this is and how confused this child will be as
she continues attempting to learn and grow in God’s Word. I have also
witnessed women, thinking they were doing something God commanded, start
wearing a napkin on their heads in direct contradiction to their
husband’s wish. The justification is ‘I have to do what God commands’
even if her husband is so spiritually stupid that he can’t see it. What
arrogance, what pride, what unmitigated chutzpah to make God’s Word of
no account for nothing more than a preference or an ascetic’s whim.
I know I’m not going to make friends in the camp of the Torah tyrants.
They should know better, but if they won’t listen to the Word then they
sure aren’t going to listen to me. We don’t need more religious leaders
who insist on teaching the precepts of men as God’s Word. But I write
articles like this to help the people who are still learning, still
growing, and still wanting to know what God is really saying. I write to
children, who may be confused by all the grammatical gymnastics and
begin to think they must be doing something wrong even though they can’t
find it in the Word. I want to reassure you that you can pick up most of
the meaning by a plain reading of God’s Word. It will take some work,
and a lot of reading of all of His wonderful Word, but you can do it. If
you don’t see things like a head covering, then don’t wear one. It’s
okay; you can’t go wrong just reading His Word and doing what you see. I
don’t mean that extended study is not a good thing, just realize that
God is writing to His kids in language they can understand, and that His
yoke is easy and His burden is light.
If there was really a
command somewhere in the Word for women to wear a cloth on the head, the
devoted and loving disciple would want to do it. Many of God’s commands
are of such a nature that they really do help to discipline the flesh
for the sake of greater holiness and intimacy with Him. This is the
nature of all of His Laws. But the Laws work because they have the
authority of God behind them. If He says they will work, then they work.
If He commanded a cloth on the head for women for any purpose, then it
would work according to that purpose for any disciple who loves with all
his or her ‘mind, soul, and strength.’ But the presence of a cloth on
the head certainly does not qualify as a command from God in any section
of Scripture that I have studied, and so does not signify any greater
adherence to God’s Word or any greater holiness than a woman who doesn’t
wear a cloth.
There are a number of places in the Scriptures where God tells us not
to add to His Word or take away from it. It is my opinion that seeing a
command here telling women to wear some sort of cloth on their heads is
adding to the Word. If someone wants to, there is nothing to prevent it
that I can see, but there is still no command. If it was really that
important for women to wear such a cloth there would be some mention of
it in the first five books of the Bible, because that is where God lays
down most of the basics of holy living for His people. Paul knows better
than to try to add to the Word, and does not do so in this section of
his writings. He refers to nature, and to tradition, but never to Torah.
His language stops well short of commanding, and we should follow his
example and stop short of making a command also.
Shalom
Bruce Scott Bertram