** Believers and Headcoverings

Believers and Headcoverings

For this study I will give the “standard” translation first, followed by a more literal translation from the greek in bright pink.

1Co 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Messiah.

1Co 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

Imitators of me be, as also I [am] of Messiah. But I praise you, brothers, because all things of me you recalled, and as I delivered to you, the precepts you hold fast.

The “ordinances” or “precepts” that Sha’ul delivered were, of course, those of the written Torah, without those additions and subtractions being pushed by the believers who were of the Pharisee sect. This follows from earlier chapters (remember, this originally was just one long letter, with no divisions, addressed to the Corinthians).

1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Messiah; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Messiah is Elohim.

But you [are] to know, that of every man - the head - Messiah is head, and of a woman, the man [is] head, and of Messiah, Elohim [is].

Here Sha’ul is getting into the meat of his argument. Clearly, there is a play on words going on here – the last sentence above should probably say in English: Messiah is the head of every man’s head. The issue is one of chain-of-command, that is, authority.

1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Every man praying or prophesying [something] down over [his] head having, shames the head of him.

Kephale, which is here translated as “head” in the sentence, does not generally mean just the hair or top of a person’s skull. In Strongs, we see that it is from the root meaning “to seize,” figuratively rendered as “the part most readily taken hold of.” The part you most readily “take hold of,” that is, identify, when you look at someone is not the top of their head – it is their entire visage, as with a bust statue – for us, that would translate as “face.”

We know that it cannot be a sin for a man to pray or prophecy with his “head” covered, because the priests and prophets and attendants in the Temple were ordered to do exactly that. The High Priest could not even remove his turban for mourning (the custom was to throw ashes on your head). The turban was part of the official costume required by Yeshua Himself, as Elohim incarnate:

Exo 39:28  And a turban of fine linen, and goodly bonnets of fine linen, and linen breeches of fine twined linen, Exo 39:29  And a girdle of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, of needlework; as YHWH commanded Moses. Exo 39:30  And they made the plate of the holy crown of pure gold, and wrote upon it a writing, like to the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO YHWH.
Exo 39:31  And they tied unto it a lace of blue, to fasten it on high upon the turban; as YHWH commanded Moses.

Lev 21:10  And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes…

So Sha’ul did not mean men should not wear kippot or yarmulkes or turbans while in the assembly with other believers to pray or prophecy. So what did he mean? For that, we get a clue in the next verse.

1Co 11:5 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.

1Co 11:6 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.

But every woman praying or prophecying uncovered with the head shames the head of herself – for it is one and the same with being shaved. If for not is covered a woman, also let her be shorn. If but shameful for a woman to be shorn or to be shaved, let her be covered.

Here Sha’ul makes sense to us, because we know from both historical sources and from artwork that women, especially married women, were supposed to be veiled in public places – their visage was to be covered. When we consider that, Sha’ul’s words to the men make more sense – it is their face that is not supposed to be covered, that is, they are not supposed to veil themselves like women. Women, on the other hand, are not supposed to adopt pagan greek styles of dress and unveil in public.

There is, by the way, evidence of numerous small Jewish sects in the days of Hellenism that had, shall we say, odd practices. You see, they were very much enamoured of the pagan greek mystery cults, and wanted something similar of their own. Some found what they were looking for in this passage:

Exo 34:32 And afterward all the children of Israel came nigh: and he [Moses] gave them in commandment all that YHWH had spoken with him in mount Sinai. Exo 34:33 And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face. Exo 34:34 But when Moses went in before YHWH to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded. Exo 34:35 And the children of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone: and Moses put the vail upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.

This is most likely the answer to the mystery. Some of the men in Corinth were part of a Judaic mystery cult that considered themselves so holy that they needed to veil their faces except when in private communion with Elohim. It is also possible that Sha’ul was teaching against the practice of raising the tallit over the head when praying – but usually the face is still visible when this is done; the man doesn’t usually pull it all the way over his face like a burkha.

As far as our own modern day observance of this teaching, veiling is no longer fashionable, to say the least. A lenient psak on this passage would still, however, REQUIRE all women in an assembly to at least have some sort of head covering on – even if it’s just a kippot. Married women are implied by the text, but not specified. (An unmarried woman is, after all, under her father’s authority, or her eldest brother’s authority if her father is deceased.) So a married woman, at least, MUST wear a hat, scarf, or kippot while in a mixed-gender assembly. This requirement, taught by Sha’ul and upheld by the Rabbis of Orthodoxy even today, is routinely ignored in “churches,” and even in many Messianic congregations. (The Rabbinic ruling is based on the episode concerning the “Sotah,” that is, the woman whose husband has a fit of jealousy.)

Num 5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before YHWH, and uncover the woman’s head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse: Num 5:19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with another instead of thy husband, be thou free from this bitter water that causeth the curse: Num 5:20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband:

The woman’s head is uncovered in public specifically because she is accused of having defied her husband’s authority over her and slept with another man. This implies, of course, that a proper married woman’s head would have been covered in the first place.

1Co 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of Elohim: but the woman is the glory of the man.

1Co 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

1Co 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

A man indeed for not ought to be covered the head [visage/face], image and glory of Elohim being. The woman but glory of a man is. For not is man of woman, but woman of man. Also for not was created man because of the woman, but woman because of he man.

1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Therefore ought the woman authority to have on the head because of the pastor.

“Power” is an odd choice for translating “Exousia,” Strongs 1849, which is why this verse sounds strange and doesn’t really make sense to us. It’s from the root meaning “ability,” and can also be translated as: privilege, competency, capacity, force, freedom, magistrate, and more likely for our purposes “token of control.” I find that translation of exousia to be most likely here, because it makes sense in the subject of chain-of-command and authority.

“Angels” is another poor choice of words here. An alternate translation, according to Strongs/Thayer, would be “messenger” i.e. “pastor” – as in, the male leader of the ekklesia to which she belongs. “Pastor” appears in these lexicons because it is used in some of the writings of the early church fathers and other extra-biblical sources. Yeshua also used the word “messenger” to describe Yochanan the Immerser, who taught repentance of sins and had a fairly large congregation himself, prior to his beheading by Herodes.

I don’t believe Sha’ul was intending to be esoteric in that lesson, I believe he was angry about a purely practical matter and the only “abstract” involved was the chain-of-command and authority issues – to which “angels” have nothing to contribute, seeing as they do not rule over us, rather, we are to rule over them.

1Co 6:3  Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

An angel has no authority over a woman or anyone else – but her pastor does.

An English translation of the verse would thus be:

Therefore ought the woman to have a token of authority on her head, because of the pastor.

This removes any doubt that the commandment for wearing a headcovering applies to all women, not just married ones, because the pastor has authority over them all.

1Co 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in Adonai.

1Co 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of Elohim.

But neither [is] man without woman, nor [is] woman without man. In Adonai, as for the woman of the man, so also the man through the woman – but all things of Elohim.

The subject of this passage still being authority and chain-of-command, Sha’ul may be referring to earlier verses in chapter 7, concerning marriage, and that fact that one should only get married “in Adonai,” meaning to another believer. This would also linked to the famous “be not unequally yoked” passage.

1Co 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto Elohim uncovered?

Among you yourselves judge: fitting is it [for] a woman uncovered to Elohim to pray?

This is a rhetorical question. The answer is supposed to be “no.”

1Co 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Does not herself nature teach you that a man indeed if adorns the hair, a dishonor to him it is.

There’s a huge difference between the greek and the usual English translation here. The primary root means to “tend,” or “care for,” – we today might say “style” or “adorn,” like painting it pink or weaving stuff into it. What we can be sure of is that Sha’ul cannot have been referring to “long” hair per se, because he himself once took a Nazarite vow, as did many other believers, and part of that vow involves letting your hair grow out (ala Sampson!).

Num 6:5  All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separates himself unto YHWH, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.

1Co 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Ekklesia of Elohim.

But if a woman should adorn the hair – a glory to her it is. Because the beautified hair instead of a veil has been given to her. But if any thinks contentious to be, we such a custom do not have, neither the ekklesia of Elohim.

This is also in line with Rabbinic teaching – a woman’s hair can be as beautifully styled or adorned as she wants it to be – for her husband. I think Sha’ul mentions this in reference back to what he said at the beginning of the chapter about women being shorn if they refused to veil themselves. Here he asserts that for a woman, having hair is far preferable to being shaved. Being shorn should not be the preferred outcome of this teaching, in other words! It has never been the custom for women to purposefully shave their hair off in order to pray uncovered.

There is no requirement in the Torah or the writings of the apostles to wear a head covering and no jewelry at all times, even outside of a mixed-gender assembly of prayer and worship.  The only time a head covering is required is when praying or prophesying in such an assembly.

… 1Co 11:17  Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse…

“come together” means assemble in a congregational meeting.

1Ti 2:1  I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1Ti 2:2  For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1Ti 2:3  For this is good and acceptable in the sight of Elohim our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4  Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5  For there is one Elohim, and one mediator between Elohim and men, the man Messiah Yeshua;
1Ti 2:6  Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
1Ti 2:7  Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Messiah, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
1Ti 2:8  I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
1Ti 2:9  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;
1Ti 2:10  But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
1Ti 2:11  Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection…

That does not say never to wear jewelry of any kind.  In a “like manner” of “without wrath and doubting” is a mental state, not a physical one.  It says your good works should be more important to you than your appearance. If you’re worrying about how you look in the assembly, you aren’t praying effectively. Indeed, if your head is properly covered, no one in a mixed-gender prayer and worship service would even see whether your hair was braided or adorned in any way – only your husband would know.

Since there is no written commandment in Torah for a woman to cover her hair at all times, choosing to do so is a personal matter between a husband and wife, whether they wish to advertise their humility and subservience to Elohim to the world or not. However, it is clear from Shaul that in any prayer and worship service, a woman’s head must have a covering of some type – how much covering is, again, debatable and should be agreed upon by a husband and wife. An unmarried woman must wear a head-covering if she is attending a prayer and worship service led by a male pastor or elder. It would follow, logically, that such a covering would not be needed in a women-only type meeting.

If we are going to obey Elohim, that includes obeying the parts that modern society ridicules and dislikes. What other people think should never be more important to us than what Elohim thinks.

Shalom, class.