Head covering

[andrew]

It may be the Marine in me.

Allow me to riff on that idea for a bit....

We individual humans at our very best are finite, and relatively puny compared to God and His creation. Our experience of life comes at us through finite filters that can process only a tiny fraction of what's going on in our immediate vicinity, let alone throughout the entire universe and mind of God. Each of us is constantly creating and revising a mental map of our reality, and it's the best we can do, and it's all we've got, but it's an insignificant scrap compared to what can be known, or what God knows, to an extent that makes our claims to knowledge and wisdom laughable. And that's before you get to our limitations, our weaknesses, and our sin....

Comparing our selves and our pretensions to knowledge to God and the universe will always keep us grounded and humble. Comparing ourselves to each other is a chump's game, a waste of time, a distraction. It breeds competition, insecurity, envy, self-righteousness, shame, pride, hostility, and judgment, while accomplishing nothing.

Zec, it may really be 'the Marine in you'. Or maybe it's something that was already in you, the same thing that made you want to join the Corps. You have an origin story, a set of life experiences, a way of being and doing, a rack of hopes, fears, wants, needs, and problems that need solving. So do I; so does everybody here. And they're all different. But yours may contain a desire or perceived need for structure, for boundaries, for clear rules strictly enforced that maybe some others don't have, or don't have as much. I don't think it's a 'sign of a weak mind' to desire 'clear direction and set parameters', but it could very well be 'the Marine in you', as well of other elements of your story that make you who you are.

We are all very, very different, and we should reflect on that more and cut each other more slack. (Call that Andrew's one-sentence summary paraphrase of Romans 14....) The families that have thoughtfully and prayerfully come to different conclusions on this matter (or most other matters) should leave each other alone and find something else to talk about. Those who haven't thought about it much don't care anyway, and those that are thinking about it can ask questions and hear different points of view and decide for themselves. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

To be continued. Keywords: relationship, system, observer.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

You are correct, headcovering was practiced by all women in all denominations from the 1st century up until the rise of feminism in the last 150 years. It is a command and was never seen as optional; but it is extremely offensive to feminists. During the late 1800's the covering devolved into fancy hats and bit by bit fell out of favor. So far as I know most denominations stopped by the 60's; excepting some Anabaptist and the Orthodox.



It is for during prayer and prophesying (public or private). Since a lot of that happens during church meetings, it became practice to wear during church. And as faith devolved, it became part of 'church clothes', not really worn outside of the service. However there is an argument to be made to wear it all the time, both from modesty and from praying continually; and that was the practice in Europe and Russia up until very recently (probably the rise of feminism, but I'm not as familiar with the history of Europe). This is a practice that dates back 3-5000 years. Considering it is a symbol of authority, wearing it at all times is eminently appropriate.



I think it is more that the angels are ministering to her; and they are kind of sensitive about the issue of proper authority.



While that sounds good at first glance, especially if you don't want to cover. It is actually quite a ridiculous interpretation. It makes no sense in the greater context of the passage. Furthermore the word translated covering there is not the same Greek word used previously. Lastly, that was NEVER the Christian practice; from the 1st century until the 19th, Christian women used a cloth covering. It's a post-feminism interpretation and one not really taken seriously either as I've repeatedly heard short hair'd women (or the husbands thereof) make that argument. You can see this if you just swap read the passage and say 'hair' everytime covering is mentioned.

Your point is duly noted. However, the monogamy-only doctrine has been taught and practiced for almost the same amount of time and equality as wide spread.

 

[FollowingHim]

We need to also remember that covering was a pre-Christian practice, completely common and expected throughout middle-eastern culture at the time of Christ. Today the Muslims retain this practice, so we most commonly associate it with Islam. However the practice itself predates Islam. As I understand it, the average modest woman, Jew or Gentile, in the Middle East at the time of Christ, covered at least her head and often was fully veiled. The exception was prostitutes, who exposed their heads to advertise themselves. And prostitution was most commonly associated with pagan temples, so uncovered women were associated with idolatry.

So in this context, the command for women to cover their heads is not the institution of a new, radical, unique practice that needs to be explained. It is simply a statement that women should dress modestly, even or especially in religious contexts, because Christianity is not a pagan sex-cult but is a modest and respectful religion.

And this then follows on to @rockfox's correct observation that this continued to be common practice until very recently.

The question then becomes, for me, quite different. Is this saying:

• Women must specifically cover their heads in a particular legalistic way, or
• Women should dress modestly in the manner considered modest in their culture, which in this context meant covering her head?

I won't give an answer to that question. I will instead say that my practice in this matter is to point my wife and daughters to the scriptures and leave God to convict them in whatever direction He wishes to. Those women who headcover and find it right and beneficial spiritually have generally come to a level of personal conviction about this and chosen to do so as a personal act of worship and submission to God. I want my wife and daughters to choose voluntarily to submit to God in the way that each believes God would have her do so.

My job is to lead my women to a personal relationship with God, not require them to put on the outward appearance of one while inwardly rebelling against it. I have seen the consequences of daughters being required to conform to an extremely strict dresscode while living at home, which they can feel publicly embarrassing and can contribute to them to resenting Christianity, finally rebelling into exactly the opposite behaviour the moment they can leave home and ending up in various messes as a result. I therefore have little interest in the outward appearance. I focus on the heart, and leave this as one potential voluntary outward expression of that heart.

 

[rockfox]

Your point is duly noted. However, the monogamy-only doctrine has been taught and practiced for almost the same amount of time and equality as wide spread.

But not literally taught in scripture. There is no equivalence here. Monogamy came from Greek cultural influence, contrary to Hebrew practice, and spoken against by Jesus. None of that is true about headcovering. It is a practice from ancient times, followed by Hebrew women.

 

[rockfox]

Women should dress modestly in the manner considered modest in their culture, which in this context meant covering her head?

Our culture has no standards for modesty. Anything goes. We don't use the world's standards as our own. Hair is sexually alluring in all cultures; it's baked into our biology.

But aside from that, modesty is not any of the reasons Paul gave. You can't cancel the command to headcover with cultural relativity; Paul pointed to God, the creation hierarchy, the angels, and nature as explanation for the necessity for covering. It is a profession that she is placing herself under rightful authority. Culture wasn't a factor.

Where is the modesty involved when a woman is praying in private to God? It wasn't about modest dress, but about covering her husband's glory when approaching the throne of God in prayer.

point my wife and daughters to the scriptures and leave God to convict them in whatever direction He wishes to...I want my wife and daughters to choose voluntarily to submit to God in the way that each believes God would have her do so.

Is all your instructions in scripture and moral living this hands off? Would you take this approach about any other command in scripture? Do you 'not require' your children to conform to 'not lying' or 'not stealing' or not practicing witchcraft? Really?

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Do you teach your children how to pray? Do you think God hear's the prayers of someone who refuses to humble themselves, submit to authority, and pray to Him in the manner He wants?

No one was confused about this passage before the 1800's because it is very plain. The problem isn't interpretation, or "God's direction"; its feminist rebellion. God gave His direction on how to pray and it's very simple: men uncover their heads, women cover their heads.

 

[FollowingHim]

I understand what you're saying, and it's a fair challenge to make. But there is another major thing to explain that I ran out of time to earlier, which is a radically different way of looking at the entire issue, and I think draws together the covering vs hair issue into a single clear narrative. It sounds shocking at first to a Western reader, but read to the end, it all makes sense...

I don't think this is referring to a "hair covering", but actually a "head covering". The shawls etc that are commonly called "head coverings" by Christians do not actually cover the head. They only cover the hair. The face is still visible, so the head has not been covered. To truly cover the "head" requires the face to be veiled.

In 1 Corinthians 11, consider the following key words: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head (G2776) uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered (G2619), let her also be shorn ... But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering (G4108).

G2776: kephale. Means "the head".
G2619: katakalupto. Thayers: 1. To cover up, 2. to veil or cover one's self. Strongs: To cover wholly, that is, veil: - cover, hide. (emphasis in original)
G4108: peribolaion: Thayers: A covering thrown around, a wrapper. a. a mantle, b. a veil. Strongs: Something thrown around one, that is a mantle, veil: - covering, vesture. (emphasis in original)

This is not talking about a headscarf or a hat. It is talking about a veil - something that wholly covers the entire head, that fully veils the face as well as the rest of the head.

These days we'd mostly associate that with Islam - but even our own fashion retains the veil at least symbolically. Women wear veils at weddings, older women still sometimes wear veils at funerals. Look at a load of women done up fancy to go to the races, or upper-class people like the British royal family attending a formal event, and you'll see plenty of veils - mesh veils that don't really cover anything, but still veils. This is part of our heritage, it's not weird.

And it makes sense of the hair. If I rewrite 1 Corinthians 11 from the KJV substituting the word "veil" for "covering", the whole thing takes on a new, but entirely consistent, meaning. That's not a fringe reading - 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.

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.
...
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.

Now the hair makes sense - and why it is important that her hair is "long"! A woman is supposed to veil her head when praying. But if she has long hair, it already covers most of her head, and it is given to her as a veil! All she has to do is pull it over her face, or simply lean forward so it falls over her face, and she's veiled! Isn't God wonderful providing her everything she needs! But if she refuses to veil herself with a cloth, or the hair God has given her, then she may as well have her hair cut short, since she refuses to use it for its God-given purpose then she doesn't deserve to have it.

This also makes 1 Corinthians 11 fit in with the rest of scripture. We don't have any other instructions in scripture for women to use head coverings. But there are a number of references to veils (e.g. Rebecca veiling herself when meeting Isaac). If this is about veils, then there are multiple witnesses, and it is no longer an isolated passage.

This has some rather interesting implications. If a woman has her hair tied up in a headscarf so it is out of her way, and cannot fall over her face, is she truly covering her head? Or is she actually disobeying the command to veil herself? In following human tradition on what the "head covering" refers to is she actually ending up in disobedience to the very word of God on the matter?

So back to my own practice - I don't think this means my women should wear what Western conservative Christians call a "head covering". I think requiring that would actually be to distract them from the true meaning of this. If anything, I believe it means they should be choosing to veil their face when praying. If using their hair - that is a behaviour that is something a woman chooses to do, or not do, each time she prays. It is a matter of personal behaviour, a personal decision on how to humble herself before her God, it's not a matter of clothing for me to require. If it means she should truly wear a cloth "head covering" in public - well I'd have to be a lot more convinced that I was correct and this was critically important to start requiring my women to wear a niqab.

So I require my wife and daughters to have long hair. That is all. But I welcome any further coverings they choose to add to that out of their own conviction.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

My job is to lead my women to a personal relationship with God, not require them to put on the outward appearance of one while inwardly rebelling against it. I have seen the consequences of daughters being required to conform to an extremely strict dresscode while living at home, which they can feel publicly embarrassing and can contribute to them to resenting Christianity, finally rebelling into exactly the opposite behaviour the moment they can leave home and ending up in various messes as a result. I therefore have little interest in the outward appearance. I focus on the heart, and leave this as one potential voluntary outward expression of that heart.

+1

 

[windblown]

But if she has long hair, it already covers most of her head, and it is given to her as a veil! All she has to do is pull it over her face, or simply lean forward so it falls over her face, and she's veiled! Isn't God wonderful providing her everything she needs!

Except God must not be very gracious to a large percentage of his daughters... you know the ones with darker skin whose natural hair does not "simply fall" anywhere.

 

[Pacman]

I understand what you're saying, and it's a fair challenge to make. But there is another major thing to explain that I ran out of time to earlier, which is a radically different way of looking at the entire issue, and I think draws together the covering vs hair issue into a single clear narrative. It sounds shocking at first to a Western reader, but read to the end, it all makes sense...

I don't think this is referring to a "hair covering", but actually a "head covering". The shawls etc that are commonly called "head coverings" by Christians do not actually cover the head. They only cover the hair. The face is still visible, so the head has not been covered. To truly cover the "head" requires the face to be veiled.

In 1 Corinthians 11, consider the following key words: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head (G2776) uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered (G2619), let her also be shorn ... But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering (G4108).

G2776: kephale. Means "the head".
G2619: katakalupto. Thayers: 1. To cover up, 2. to veil or cover one's self. Strongs: To cover wholly, that is, veil: - cover, hide. (emphasis in original)
G4108: peribolaion: Thayers: A covering thrown around, a wrapper. a. a mantle, b. a veil. Strongs: Something thrown around one, that is a mantle, veil: - covering, vesture. (emphasis in original)

This is not talking about a headscarf or a hat. It is talking about a veil - something that wholly covers the entire head, that fully veils the face as well as the rest of the head.

These days we'd mostly associate that with Islam - but even our own fashion retains the veil at least symbolically. Women wear veils at weddings, older women still sometimes wear veils at funerals. Look at a load of women done up fancy to go to the races, or upper-class people like the British royal family attending a formal event, and you'll see plenty of veils - mesh veils that don't really cover anything, but still veils. This is part of our heritage, it's not weird.

And it makes sense of the hair. If I rewrite 1 Corinthians 11 from the KJV substituting the word "veil" for "covering", the whole thing takes on a new, but entirely consistent, meaning. That's not a fringe reading - 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.

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.
...
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.

Now the hair makes sense - and why it is important that her hair is "long"! A woman is supposed to veil her head when praying. But if she has long hair, it already covers most of her head, and it is given to her as a veil! All she has to do is pull it over her face, or simply lean forward so it falls over her face, and she's veiled! Isn't God wonderful providing her everything she needs! But if she refuses to veil herself with a cloth, or the hair God has given her, then she may as well have her hair cut short, since she refuses to use it for its God-given purpose then she doesn't deserve to have it.

This also makes 1 Corinthians 11 fit in with the rest of scripture. We don't have any other instructions in scripture for women to use head coverings. But there are a number of references to veils (e.g. Rebecca veiling herself when meeting Isaac). If this is about veils, then there are multiple witnesses, and it is no longer an isolated passage.

This has some rather interesting implications. If a woman has her hair tied up in a headscarf so it is out of her way, and cannot fall over her face, is she truly covering her head? Or is she actually disobeying the command to veil herself? In following human tradition on what the "head covering" refers to is she actually ending up in disobedience to the very word of God on the matter?

So back to my own practice - I don't think this means my women should wear what Western conservative Christians call a "head covering". I think requiring that would actually be to distract them from the true meaning of this. If anything, I believe it means they should be choosing to veil their face when praying. If using their hair - that is a behaviour that is something a woman chooses to do, or not do, each time she prays. It is a matter of personal behaviour, a personal decision on how to humble herself before her God, it's not a matter of clothing for me to require. If it means she should truly wear a cloth "head covering" in public - well I'd have to be a lot more convinced that I was correct and this was critically important to start requiring my women to wear a niqab.

So I require my wife and daughters to have long hair. That is all. But I welcome any further coverings they choose to add to that out of their own conviction.

This is the very first time I have ever seen someone make a Biblical and also logically consistent explanation of this passage in support of the "her long hair is her covering" perspective.

Thank you.

I will definitely look into it from this angle.

 

[Pacman]

Except God must not be very gracious to a large percentage of his daughters... you know the ones with darker skin whose natural hair does not "simply fall" anywhere.

My wife would be a good example of this...

 

[Shadowjak's Dancer]

My wife doesn't wear a head covering, but as Messianic Jews, many of our friends do. One of my friends actually makes them for others. Quite unlike what I see a lot of orthodox Muslim or even Jewish women wear, I have found them to be quite tasteful and even lovely. That being said, I have always found modesty to be an attractive trait in women. While I will allow others to debate the Scriptural necessity, I figured I would share my personal response.

That isn't to say that I don't find women in bikinis to be attractive. Quite the contrary. However, I find that is a very different kind of attractiveness that should be reserved for the marital relationship.

There is something a lot cleaner, for lack of a better term, in how I find a modestly-dressed woman attractive. It doesn't mean that I find the modestly dressed even slightly less attractive, but it has to do more with the natural grace and beauty of a woman and her character than simply a biologically triggered sexual alertness.

Furthermore, I thus prefer to spend time in the company of the modestly dressed as I can do so without constantly trying to control my eyes and thoughts.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I understand what you're saying, and it's a fair challenge to make. But there is another major thing to explain that I ran out of time to earlier, which is a radically different way of looking at the entire issue, and I think draws together the covering vs hair issue into a single clear narrative. It sounds shocking at first to a Western reader, but read to the end, it all makes sense...

I don't think this is referring to a "hair covering", but actually a "head covering". The shawls etc that are commonly called "head coverings" by Christians do not actually cover the head. They only cover the hair. The face is still visible, so the head has not been covered. To truly cover the "head" requires the face to be veiled.

In 1 Corinthians 11, consider the following key words: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head (G2776) uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered (G2619), let her also be shorn ... But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering (G4108).

G2776: kephale. Means "the head".
G2619: katakalupto. Thayers: 1. To cover up, 2. to veil or cover one's self. Strongs: To cover wholly, that is, veil: - cover, hide. (emphasis in original)
G4108: peribolaion: Thayers: A covering thrown around, a wrapper. a. a mantle, b. a veil. Strongs: Something thrown around one, that is a mantle, veil: - covering, vesture. (emphasis in original)

This is not talking about a headscarf or a hat. It is talking about a veil - something that wholly covers the entire head, that fully veils the face as well as the rest of the head.

These days we'd mostly associate that with Islam - but even our own fashion retains the veil at least symbolically. Women wear veils at weddings, older women still sometimes wear veils at funerals. Look at a load of women done up fancy to go to the races, or upper-class people like the British royal family attending a formal event, and you'll see plenty of veils - mesh veils that don't really cover anything, but still veils. This is part of our heritage, it's not weird.

And it makes sense of the hair. If I rewrite 1 Corinthians 11 from the KJV substituting the word "veil" for "covering", the whole thing takes on a new, but entirely consistent, meaning. That's not a fringe reading - 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.

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.
...
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.

Now the hair makes sense - and why it is important that her hair is "long"! A woman is supposed to veil her head when praying. But if she has long hair, it already covers most of her head, and it is given to her as a veil! All she has to do is pull it over her face, or simply lean forward so it falls over her face, and she's veiled! Isn't God wonderful providing her everything she needs! But if she refuses to veil herself with a cloth, or the hair God has given her, then she may as well have her hair cut short, since she refuses to use it for its God-given purpose then she doesn't deserve to have it.

This also makes 1 Corinthians 11 fit in with the rest of scripture. We don't have any other instructions in scripture for women to use head coverings. But there are a number of references to veils (e.g. Rebecca veiling herself when meeting Isaac). If this is about veils, then there are multiple witnesses, and it is no longer an isolated passage.

This has some rather interesting implications. If a woman has her hair tied up in a headscarf so it is out of her way, and cannot fall over her face, is she truly covering her head? Or is she actually disobeying the command to veil herself? In following human tradition on what the "head covering" refers to is she actually ending up in disobedience to the very word of God on the matter?

So back to my own practice - I don't think this means my women should wear what Western conservative Christians call a "head covering". I think requiring that would actually be to distract them from the true meaning of this. If anything, I believe it means they should be choosing to veil their face when praying. If using their hair - that is a behaviour that is something a woman chooses to do, or not do, each time she prays. It is a matter of personal behaviour, a personal decision on how to humble herself before her God, it's not a matter of clothing for me to require. If it means she should truly wear a cloth "head covering" in public - well I'd have to be a lot more convinced that I was correct and this was critically important to start requiring my women to wear a niqab.

So I require my wife and daughters to have long hair. That is all. But I welcome any further coverings they choose to add to that out of their own conviction.

I love this. Well explained

This reminded me of the verse about men praying everywhere, lifting holy hands. I guess the image that these produce for me is a man praying with hands and head lifted and a woman with her head bowed. Each symbolizing authority and submission respectively.

 

[Pacman]

I understand what you're saying, and it's a fair challenge to make. But there is another major thing to explain that I ran out of time to earlier, which is a radically different way of looking at the entire issue, and I think draws together the covering vs hair issue into a single clear narrative. It sounds shocking at first to a Western reader, but read to the end, it all makes sense...

I don't think this is referring to a "hair covering", but actually a "head covering". The shawls etc that are commonly called "head coverings" by Christians do not actually cover the head. They only cover the hair. The face is still visible, so the head has not been covered. To truly cover the "head" requires the face to be veiled.

In 1 Corinthians 11, consider the following key words: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head (G2776) uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered (G2619), let her also be shorn ... But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering (G4108).

G2776: kephale. Means "the head".
G2619: katakalupto. Thayers: 1. To cover up, 2. to veil or cover one's self. Strongs: To cover wholly, that is, veil: - cover, hide. (emphasis in original)
G4108: peribolaion: Thayers: A covering thrown around, a wrapper. a. a mantle, b. a veil. Strongs: Something thrown around one, that is a mantle, veil: - covering, vesture. (emphasis in original)

This is not talking about a headscarf or a hat. It is talking about a veil - something that wholly covers the entire head, that fully veils the face as well as the rest of the head.

These days we'd mostly associate that with Islam - but even our own fashion retains the veil at least symbolically. Women wear veils at weddings, older women still sometimes wear veils at funerals. Look at a load of women done up fancy to go to the races, or upper-class people like the British royal family attending a formal event, and you'll see plenty of veils - mesh veils that don't really cover anything, but still veils. This is part of our heritage, it's not weird.

And it makes sense of the hair. If I rewrite 1 Corinthians 11 from the KJV substituting the word "veil" for "covering", the whole thing takes on a new, but entirely consistent, meaning. That's not a fringe reading - 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.

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.
...
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.

Now the hair makes sense - and why it is important that her hair is "long"! A woman is supposed to veil her head when praying. But if she has long hair, it already covers most of her head, and it is given to her as a veil! All she has to do is pull it over her face, or simply lean forward so it falls over her face, and she's veiled! Isn't God wonderful providing her everything she needs! But if she refuses to veil herself with a cloth, or the hair God has given her, then she may as well have her hair cut short, since she refuses to use it for its God-given purpose then she doesn't deserve to have it.

This also makes 1 Corinthians 11 fit in with the rest of scripture. We don't have any other instructions in scripture for women to use head coverings. But there are a number of references to veils (e.g. Rebecca veiling herself when meeting Isaac). If this is about veils, then there are multiple witnesses, and it is no longer an isolated passage.

This has some rather interesting implications. If a woman has her hair tied up in a headscarf so it is out of her way, and cannot fall over her face, is she truly covering her head? Or is she actually disobeying the command to veil herself? In following human tradition on what the "head covering" refers to is she actually ending up in disobedience to the very word of God on the matter?

So back to my own practice - I don't think this means my women should wear what Western conservative Christians call a "head covering". I think requiring that would actually be to distract them from the true meaning of this. If anything, I believe it means they should be choosing to veil their face when praying. If using their hair - that is a behaviour that is something a woman chooses to do, or not do, each time she prays. It is a matter of personal behaviour, a personal decision on how to humble herself before her God, it's not a matter of clothing for me to require. If it means she should truly wear a cloth "head covering" in public - well I'd have to be a lot more convinced that I was correct and this was critically important to start requiring my women to wear a niqab.

So I require my wife and daughters to have long hair. That is all. But I welcome any further coverings they choose to add to that out of their own conviction.

So after giving this some thought one thing I still don't see as fitting with the "long hair is her covering" perspective is the observation I made about glory from the passage. Am I simply off base with that perspective in your opinion? There are other things about your explanation that I have difficulty accepting as well but that seems like the biggest part to me...

Glory

Paul also teaches us about glory, which is another reason for us to follow this practice.

The reason for the uncovered head of the man is given: “Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.” Man must not, cover his head in the assembly because he represents God as His image. Also, he is the glory of God. God’s image and glory must not be hidden. These are two reasons for the uncovered head of the man.

The woman is not spoken of as the image of man, but she is spoken of as the glory of the man. The glory of man must not be manifest in corporate worship, therefore that glory must be covered. No glory but God’s is to be displayed while worshiping God. Mans public ministry is to be done so that God alone receives the glory.

Some will cite verse 15, “Her hair is given her for a covering.” Since she has hair or long hair, they say, that is enough. Notice that for the woman there are two glories involved. She is a glory: “The woman is the glory of the man” (v. 7). But she also has a glory of her own. Her hair is a glory to her (v.15). For the glory that she is (the glory of the man), God has given her a natural covering, (her hair). For the glory that she has (her hair), she must submit her will and cover that with another covering which she places over her own glory.

By covering “the glory of man” (the woman) and covering the woman's glory (her hair) and leaving uncovered “the glory of God” (the man), we are allowing God alone to receive the glory.

To argue, then, that long hair is the woman’s head covering seems to miss the very point of the function of the head covering and of the long hair: one symbolizes her submission while the other symbolizes her glory.

 

[The Revolting Man]

So after giving this some thought one thing I still don't see as fitting with the "long hair is her covering" perspective is the observation I made about glory from the passage. Am I simply off base with that perspective in your opinion? There are other things about your explanation that I have difficulty accepting as well but that seems like the biggest part to me...

I don't think I' ever ever seen anyone deal with the glory that way. It's an excellent line of thought and one that needs to be explored. What brought this to your attention ? Like I said, I've never seen it before.

 

[Pacman]

I don't think I' ever ever seen anyone deal with the glory that way. It's an excellent line of thought and one that needs to be explored. What brought this to your attention ? Like I said, I've never seen it before.

When I was initially studying it several months ago I ran across a brief mention of it online. Don't remember the specific sources but that's what got me started looking into it from that angle. And what I posted here is the result of my study.

 

[The Revolting Man]

When I was initially studying it several months ago I ran across a brief mention of it online. Don't remember the specific sources but that's what got me started looking into it from that angle. And what I posted here is the result of my study.

Well I will be looking in to it sir. Thank you.

 

[FollowingHim]

That's a very fair line of reasoning @Pacman.

Unfortunately, if I put it all together with the points I raised about the meaning of "covering" being something that wraps around, covering the entire head including the face, then I'd unfortunately end up with a woman needing a full head and face veil and the hair not being an option in the matter. Maybe that's true. But it's not a comfortable conclusion for a woman in our modern Western culture. Which in turn is the most invalid argument I could possibly make against it...

So it's a bit of a dilemma. We are told all these points:

1. A woman's hair is her glory
2. A woman's hair is given to her as a covering.
3. The woman is the glory of the man
4. The woman is to be covered at least in certain settings.
5. The body-part to be covered is the "head", not just a part of the head, meaning she is to be veiled.

So the woman is the glory of man (3), is to be veiled (5) in certain settings (4), and can veil herself with her hair as that is given to her as a covering (2)...
But in doing that she leaves her own glory visible (1). To cover that would require a cloth head-covering and veil.

So, does scripture explicitly state that the glory of the woman also needs to be covered?

 

[The Revolting Man]

That's a very fair line of reasoning @Pacman.

Unfortunately, if I put it all together with the points I raised about the meaning of "covering" being something that wraps around, covering the entire head including the face, then I'd unfortunately end up with a woman needing a full head and face veil and the hair not being an option in the matter. Maybe that's true. But it's not a comfortable conclusion for a woman in our modern Western culture. Which in turn is the most invalid argument I could possibly make against it...

So it's a bit of a dilemma. We are told all these points:

1. A woman's hair is her glory
2. A woman's hair is given to her as a covering.
3. The woman is the glory of the man
4. The woman is to be covered at least in certain settings.
5. The body-part to be covered is the "head", not just a part of the head, meaning she is to be veiled.

So the woman is the glory of man (3), is to be veiled (5) in certain settings (4), and can veil herself with her hair as that is given to her as a covering (2)...
But in doing that she leaves her own glory visible (1). To cover that would require a cloth head-covering and veil.

So, does scripture explicitly state that the glory of the woman also needs to be covered?

You have over complicated this to the point where you can dismiss it. It's really simple though when you take it at face value. The "glory" has nothing to do with the instruction, which is for women to have some kind of undefined covering on their head when they pray and for men to not have any covering on their head when they pray. This is another area where understanding will follow simple obedience.

 

[Pacman]

So, does scripture explicitly state that the glory of the woman also needs to be covered?

Fair point. The passage does not specify that the woman's glory is to be covered... Please notice that one of the first statements I made about the glory is that it's another reason to follow this practice. Not the only reason. My view on verse 15 is that it is an example from nature in support of the previous teaching in the passage.

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...

 

[Nikud]

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.