• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Headcovering

sydneyv

sydneyv

New Member
Female
Hello, friends!

This is kind of a question for the ladies, but I'm going to post it here, because I'd love to hear the opinion of the men also.

Does anyone here cover their hair for your faith? I'd love to know why or why not.

To give you a little bit of insight into my story, I've been covering my hair for about a year and a half. I was convicted by, you guessed it, 1 Corinthians 11. I could go on and on about all of the great things it has done for my faith, but I'm mainly interested in everyone's opinion.

Thank you for your time and thoughtfulness in advance.

Much love,
SydneyV
 
I know some members will respond to this but I wanted to let you know that there is a thread from 2010 labeled "Head covering" under the Ladies Only section. You might find those posts interesting. As for me, I have never been convicted about it by the Lord. I guess he is busy with other things in my heart. :-) My husband has not asked that of me either so as of now I do not use a covering. I am glad though that it has brought you maturity in your faith.
 
My wife almost never posts although I will ask her to take a look at this one. We do cover. 1 Corinthians seems pretty clear that men are to pray uncovered and women covered. My wife is the one who got serious about the issue and I looked into it and agreed that we should start.

She only covers when there is a chance of prayer and we don't stress the type of covering. Although I have asked her that they be noticeable and not just a hair barrette or something. Also, I have to wear a hard hat at work so I have quit praying at work based off the same scriptures. I do feel like it has brought a seriousness and an increased value to my prayer life. Scripture says its shameful to pray any other way so I can't help but feel like it is more important than we treat it. Although, who are we to say which of God's commands are important. This one is so easy to obey too. I don't know why we would put off being faithful in this small thing until we get the big things right.
 
Hi Sydney,
Personally, I have started covering my head, for many reasons, not just one verse.

1. The scripture you mentioned. 1 Corinthians 11:10 seems to be saying the covering displays her power/authority to speak before the messengers.

2. In the Old Testament, if a woman was suspected by her husband to be guilty of adultery, her hair was to be unbound/uncovered, this was a symbol of being humbled, also a shame. It was a shame to uncover the head, and it was also a sign of mourning. Men would humble themselves when they would pray, by removing their covering, while married women were to keep theirs on. I am not sure if an unmarried woman is to cover her head, as it is usually a sign of her husband's covering/protection being over her. Notice 1 Corinthians 11 compares a woman praying in public without a head covering to one whose head is shaved, and it's a shame. Sinead O'Connor can be thanked for bringing back the bald head temple prostitute look. Even the Temple prostitutes covered their head, though, according to the Bible, they wore a full veil.

3. When I wear a head covering, men don't "check me out". It's like I have, "Do not touch, do not covet, not available, not interested" written on my forehead. Of course, not wearing seductive clothing or makeup also has something to do with it. So, modesty. I am a curvy redhead, so if I paint my face and wear tight clothes, and wear my hair like most do these days, I look very much like a prostitute. I used to be a different person and attracted the wrong kind of people just by my appearance. I would rather not draw attention to those features the world finds attractive, when the world says to flaunt those things.

4. My husband did not ask me to do it, but after wearing it for several months, he did say he understood why I was doing it, that my motives were good, for YaH and my husband, and he thanked me for wearing it.

5.My children prefer I wear a covering. Many get offended if you don't wear one because of their own convictions.

6. You don't have to worry about hairstyles/cuts, dying your hair, thinning hair, or bad hair days when you cover your head. Our beauty should come from within, not outward appearance and hair fashions. 1 Peter 3:3

6. Last but not least, I get really nasty looks and comments from some people for wearing it, much like those nice comments from those disgusted by plural wives, so it shows that it's truth. Many men like to show their wives off and let other men drool over them and covet them and it puffs them up to have their trophy wife on their arm. It makes them feel like the big man in the room to have the woman all the other men want. One of these men once said to me with an ugly sneer on his face, "Don't people mistake you for a MUSLIM when you wear that THING on your head?" He said that in front of his wife and others, intending to embarrass me and shame me hoping it would pressure me to stop wearing it and discourage others from starting to. He didn't want his wife who looks and dresses like a worldly teenager to get any ideas. There was nothing about my head covering that looked Muslim. I just smiled and told him that lots of faiths wear these "things" on their heads, including Christians, Messianics, and Jews. He was Messianic"ish", maybe more in word than in deed. Wearing a head covering is definitely for those who don't care what others think.
 
Among other arguments, I've heard it said that some proselytes from hellenistic cults (specifically women) had a habit of cutting their hair incredibly short in a showing of their cultic status. In that vein of reasoning, the argument is that the women should not wear excessively short hair,

Personally, however, a reading of the text where a woman is suspected by her husband of adultery who has to present herself to the Priests for the water that brings the curse, shows that the man uncovers his wife's head, as though removing his husband-covering over her as she must face the Almighty alone in this matter. Contrasted to this is the usual protection he can offer her in the voiding of any vows she may rashly make with her lips, and the covering authority he has to void such responsibilities. In this one instance, he is removing from her the protection of a husband (similar to that of a father's over his virgin daughter) when she goes before the Almighty. Is this an actual head covering, or is it some form of Spiritual covering which protects her from liability before the Almighty, like the covering that the Messiah offers all of us? I'm not entirely sure... I think it could be the one, but I also think it could practically operate as both.
 
I am but a barbarian of the gentiles, from the land of procedural circumcisions. Even if I hadn't been told, it would have never occurred to me to raise spiritual questions at a meat market. The term messianic confuses me.

So consider the source...

I ended up cutting my hair (which was glorious) convicted by 1 Corinthians 11. I resisted it for a long time based on verse 16 , thinking that by being contentious, I exempted myself from the command. I finally decided that my long hair was not a victim-less crime, and it was unfair to the angels, whose services I gladly solicit.

However it is my take that verse 15 states that if a woman has long hair, it is a sufficient covering to meet the requirements of having a covering as a symbol of authority. I was iffy about this for a while, because the word for covering in v 15 is unrelated to the words for covered/uncovered used everywhere else in this passage. However that is because the covered/uncovered words are verbs and adjectives, but the word in v 15 is a noun which is elsewhere translated (In Hebrews 1:12) as vesture, or in context: a mantle, a foldable article of clothing.

It is therefore my opinion that if a woman has hair long enough to cover her head, the angels will not be confused about her authority and she will get on fairly decently without needing any additional garments.

Of course, if anyone's conscience requires them to wear a cloth garment on their head as well, then I'm 100% sure they should be wearing a cloth garment. If my God can overlook the grave error of vegetarianism, I am certain He will accept a bescarved woman.
 
This is an issue that causes a lot of contention. It is hard to read that a woman's hair is sufficient for a headcovering for prayer because that would require that men be shaved bald to pray since it is as big a shame for us to be covered.

I don't make a big deal out of this in normal settings and my wife is one of the only women to cover in our very large, mainstream church. I would think some of the scholars here would be interested in why God chose to address this issue. I can't accept that it was cultural because I don't accept that about any biblical issue.
 
I contend!

The text uses a funny word "kumao", which is not a usual way to say hair. The only time that word would be used is in the expanded way "hair that is noticeably long, worn in an ornamental fashion" or the condensed version "long hair".

It is for this reason that a man does not have to be skin bald to be considered "uncovered" :

A woman is given her "noticeably long, ornamental hair" (kumao) as a "mantel" (peribolaion). If she did not wear her hair thus, she would be considered uncovered, and may as well be shorn.

A man who has kumao-hair covers his head and therefore dishonors his head. If his hair is not kumao-status, his crew cut, mop top, bowl cut or whatever else he's rocking would be just fine, it doesn't dishonor his head.

I agree that the 'cultural' arguments are weak. I think the reason is stated clearly enough (although by no means is it a THOROUGH explanation) in verse 10. "For this reason... because of the ANGELS"

Aside from an appeal to shame and dishonor and general nature, the persons we are somehow offending/stumbling are angels.

I have my own theories as to why and how that might be, but I think in any case it is certain that angels are not concerned with our human cultural trends when it comes to following the commands of the Lord. It was not unusual for the people of Sodom to accost travelers, but the visiting angels did not take their cultural norms into consideration before nuking them.
 
That is interesting about the word kome. That is its only appearance in scripture but it is pretty disconnected from the commandment and verses 5 and 6 make it clear that it would be logically impossible for the hair to be the covering meant. It says if a woman is to pray uncovered let her shave her head, but if her hair is her covering and she was praying uncovered she would have already shaved her head. Also, what is the standard for hair that would make it long enough and ornamental enough to count as a covering? Are women with naturally weak hair required to wear some other covering or just shave? It just seems much simpler to take this passage at face value and have women cover their heads when they pray or prophesy. That certainly wouldn't violate the passage and who wants to risk their prayers being shameful to God?
 
I'm not opposed to the idea. I'd throw a blanket over Rainy right now if I thought it was required. For a brief period before coming to my current understanding, she was totally putting a dish towel over her head. There is no shame in our game.

My hang up about going back to that is: If kome does not refer to long or ornamental hair and is not the covering meant, why does Paul bring it up?
Or more to the point: If in verse 15 long hair is given the woman for a covering, what makes this covering insufficient to fulfill the requirement of verses 5 and 6?

As far as standards go: I have no idea. I don't even know what sort of garments pertain to a man that women should not wear. They used to tell me that women shouldn't wear pants because those were for boys. Then they came out with skinny jeans and all I can say is that a man ought not wear them. Some of these gendery questions may just require common sense, because they aren't really fleshed out about which cuts of cloth are too masculine and how long is too long hair-wise.

What can I say? My idea of the face value of this passage is unlikely to match up with others. It was a plain reading of verse 15 that caused me to allow Rainy to not bother with the dish-rag.

I am a man of many calculated risks. I callously ignore even a pretense of observing the sabbath, I eat bacon like it was the cure for cancer, and I blab my big fat opinion about polygamy to a bunch of people for no other reason than it is a scriptural truth and all scriptural truths will be spoken. Which is as much to say, I could be wrong about any of these and could suffer a penalty; but I must go with what I believe is the most likely case.

For my wife and within my household, I see no need to have her cover her head with anything other than the covering given her already. If for some reason she gets weak hair and it goes all short, I will be of a mind to buy her a prayer shawl or some such.


I don't want to continue going on about this, because it is still my opinion that anyone that thinks they should, should. I just wanted to point out why I don't think I'm a heathen for not doing so myself. I'm going to take this opportunity to step off this conversation until someone says my name three times or something.
 
Well, to look at this from another angle:

Paul was, in fact of the religion of Israel, as were all the first Apostles. It is my understanding that married (Orthodox) Jewish women wear an actual head covering, sometimes a wig, and perhaps this Jewish context speaks into this discussion.
 
i'm just going to say it's good to be back - i've been going through more serious medical / disability problems - not to mention going through the worst winter on record here in MA. i'm glad i made it back. HI EVERYONE!

about head-covering, i grew up Catholic although i'm an open-minded LDS flavor of Mormon now - one who puts Christ before any Church/organization. Anyways, growing up in the OLD Catholic church - i'm talking when we still had all masses in Latin here - we had to wear a hat or prayer/chapel veil on our heads. Catholic school uniforms had beanies for the girls to wear on days we went to mass in school. if you forgot all of this - whether or not you went to Catholic school - when you got to church a helpful (or, in some cases, hateful) nun would bobby-pin a Kleenex to your head. So i grew up with it. In the LDS Temple - which not everyone, even every LDS member, can go to - for one of the services in which we make sacred covenants with God - including regarding marriage - women DO wear a veil still.

i've always liked the head covering. The LDS church does not REQUIRE it; however, i like the idea - so i often would wear at least a head-band on my head as i felt better about having SOMETHING on my head. The scripture also says that a woman's long hair is given to her for a covering, so i haven't cut my hair in some times. in fact the last time i cut off any of it was that i cut off a lock of it and put it in my late Husband's coffin - may he rest in peace- when he died. That's because i'm Native American - full member of a tribe, with a legal membership card - and many Native Americans don't cut their hair unless someone in their nuclear or closer parts of the extended family dies. Also the first thing my Husband ever said to me was he loved my hair. So i put a lock of it in with his body, to show respect according to the inter-tribal Indian ways. But i feel like head-covering may have originally been to protect the woman too - can't prove that scriptural, but i do feel safer when i have something on my head in spiritual situations. thanks for letting me share. j/L "Granny" Matrika (Rolling Buffalo Woman) p s is there a reason the newsletter hasn't been coming to me? or is it just late? By the way, just for your info, some Native American tribes- i don't know where my tribe stands on it, except the Chief said they practice Old Testament marriage meaning if you have sex with and live with a woman, you are married in the Creator's eyes - but some Indian tribes, i've been told by a Navajo woman i used to know DID practice plural marriage and a few still do. (For the record, i'm a member of a specifically Christian tribe - all members are some kind of Christian, as i understand it)
 
May I ask what tribe you are a part of Matrika? I would be very interested in reading more about them.

Hey Slumber, Paul brought up long hair to point out that even nature gives woman a covering and that reinforces his assertion that she needs an additional covering when she prays. And I would like to clarify that is the only time it is commanded, although certain optional at other times.
 
I get it. And I'm aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaalmost persuaded. Here's my hangups:

1: How does Paul assert an additional covering is needed when I totally don't see the word 'additional' in the text?

2: If nature provides a covering, what makes this covering insufficient?

I mean, if a man lets his hair grow long (or whatever it really takes to be kome) and all of a sudden he has a dishonorable covering, isn't the opposite true? Wouldn't a woman who makes sure to have long (or kome) hair have an honorable covering?
 
All I can say is that verses 13 through 16 are by way of an explanation. The real command is found in verses 3 through 10. In Young's Literal Translation it says if a woman is to pray uncovered then she should be shaved or shorn. The only way this makes sense to me is if she was to wear an additional covering when she prayed. That also helps explain the man's admonition to pray uncovered, otherwise we have to start finding a Biblical standard for haircuts so we can come up with a just standard to live up to.

It just seems like the alternative is a situation where we run around with rulers making sure everyone's hair is appropriate prayer length.
 
It just seems like the alternative is a situation where we run around with rulers making sure everyone's hair is appropriate prayer length.[/quote]

Been part of that.:mad:
As that's the way amish operate.

We have come to believe that a headcovering is not a salvation issue but a power issue. So we still practice it. I also appreciate the hands off appearance as some of you talked about.

Love the Truth
 
When I first came to this site I was in search of answers regarding headcoverings. I felt very convicted to do it; however, my husband wasn't a Christian at that time and said he wouldn't want me to. After doing much prayer and research I found this website: http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/ It answered a lot of questions that I had. I don't believe it to be a salvation issue; however, until the '60s ladies covered their heads in many Christian denominational churches. Although, I believe that most women that covered at church during the early 1900s with hats where doing it more as a fashion statement than it's scriptural meaning. However, the churches still believed it to be something all ladies should do until they changed with the cultural opinion.

There are days when I want to go back to be uncovered, but my husband really likes me to cover now. He likes that I show a symbol of authority on my head. I've noticed that men seem to "back off" when I'm covered and modestly dressed. It is a struggle though, because my flesh does scream out to the days of old without the covering.

I look at it from not only a 1 Corinthians 11 point-of-view, but also a Romans 14 point-of-view.

I'll be interested in hearing what you feel the Spirit is leading you to do and what your husband thinks.
 
I love that site! That was the "last straw" that led me to cover and, personally, cover full time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top