Head Covering in Modern Times
- Thread starter GospelAdorned
- Start date
- Status
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
This is a passage I've been thinking about for a while, specifically wondering about the OT background (I can't help it; it's my job). After all, if headcovering is a universal, creational (? presumably Eve would not have worn a hat pre-Fall?) principle, then we would expect it to be reflected in the OT as well. Specifically, the priests seem to have been required to wear turbans during their ministry (Exod. 28:4), so presumably they prayed with their heads covered? And if "nature" tells us that it is a disgrace for men to have long hair, what do we make of the Nazirite vows in Numbers 6? Some commentators suggest that phusis actually has a quite different sense and refers to a more local sense of propriety (after all, long hair in men was not regarded as problematic universally even in Graeco-Roman society). Does anybody know good treatments of these specific questions, which further complicate an already difficult passage?
Andrew35
Puritan Board Junior
Hadn't even thought of those points. This issue can become quite the rabbit hole, can't it?
gainora1
Puritan Board Freshman
Here are a couple verses that mention a covering in the OT:
Isaiah 3:18-23 “In that day the Lord will take away the finery of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents; the pendants, the bracelets, and the scarves; the headdresses, the armlets, the sashes, the perfume boxes, and the amulets; the signet rings and nose rings; the festal robes, the mantles, the cloaks, and the handbags; the mirrors, the linen garments, the turbans, and the veils.”
Song of Solomon 4:1 - “Behold, you are beautiful, my love, behold, you are beautiful! Your eyes are doves behind your veil. Your hair is like a flock of goats leaping down the slopes of Gilead.”
Genesis 24:65 “and said to the servant, "Who is that man, walking in the field to meet us?" The servant said, "It is my master." So she took her veil and covered herself.”
Not sure that puts the nails in the coffin, but its very interesting and to me does suggest there was at least a practice of veil and head covering in Israel as well before 1 Corinthians.
Isaiah 3:18-23 “In that day the Lord will take away the finery of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents; the pendants, the bracelets, and the scarves; the headdresses, the armlets, the sashes, the perfume boxes, and the amulets; the signet rings and nose rings; the festal robes, the mantles, the cloaks, and the handbags; the mirrors, the linen garments, the turbans, and the veils.”
Song of Solomon 4:1 - “Behold, you are beautiful, my love, behold, you are beautiful! Your eyes are doves behind your veil. Your hair is like a flock of goats leaping down the slopes of Gilead.”
Genesis 24:65 “and said to the servant, "Who is that man, walking in the field to meet us?" The servant said, "It is my master." So she took her veil and covered herself.”
Not sure that puts the nails in the coffin, but its very interesting and to me does suggest there was at least a practice of veil and head covering in Israel as well before 1 Corinthians.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Hi Andy,
You'll notice I didn't mention women's attire in my questions, since it adds an additional layer of complexity and yet more questions. The headgear mentioned in Isaiah 3 would clearly fall under the category I mentioned earlier of "fashion" rather than "conviction" - this is the attire of rich women not ordinary women. Veils were worn for a variety of reasons in the ancient Near East, but especially associated with engagement and marriage, as in Song 4 and Genesis 24. However, "veiled women" could also be women of loose character (Song 1:7; Gen 38:14). And none of these passages refer to a worship context, which is the key feature of 1 Corinthians 11. The fact that Rebekah veils herself before meeting Isaac shows that women were not all routinely veiled in that culture.
I have thought about this question too, but I wonder if perhaps it has to do with the priests mediatorial office. After all, if we see the woman as "skipping" a step of the hierarchy (women - man - Christ - God) when praying - perhaps the priests would be doing the same in acting as mediators?
gainora1
Puritan Board Freshman
Brother - like I said, I don’t think it puts a nail in the coffin for the issue, but am just pointing out that the use of head covering and veils are not unique to Greco Roman culture or specifically Corinth, but to your point, were widely used across the near east. Regarding if it was customary for women to have a covering during temple worship, I can’t think of any scripture that would lend itself to or against that. However, I agree it’s certainly a worthy question to investigate!
The mediatorial aspect is brought out in the verse prescribing the headdress: "that he may minister unto me in the priest's office."
In terms of 1 Cor. 11:3, the man's head is not visible so he wears no visible covering. The woman's head is visible so she wears a visible covering. In the case of the priests, they were ministering before the visible presence of God. He sitteth between the cherubims, Ps. 99:1.
iainduguid
Puritan Board Junior
Sorry, Matthew, I'm not following your argument here. Are you saying that the man's head (Christ?) is not visible, so he wears no visible covering, but the woman's head (her husband) is visible so she wears a visible covering? Is that a traditional understanding of this verse? Can you point me to some sources? I don't see how that fits with the OT example because the Lord's glory was not visibly present in the Tabernacle or temple, except for at their dedication. The Lord was invisibly present between the cherubim, certainly from where the priests were ministering outside the Holy of Holies. So shouldn't they have had an invisible covering too? While Jesus was physically present on earth, were the disciples then to pray with their heads covered, because their head was visible? I'd be grateful if you could explain a little further.
I still have so many questions about this passage, including a new one I just thought of: in modern synagogues, is it not the case that orthodox male Jews pray covered with a shawl? Do we know how long that practice has been going on? Is Paul presenting a radically different perspective in 1 Cor 11 from the Judaism of his own day? Again, if anyone has any sources to point to I would be grateful.
Hello Iain. I apologise if my brevity has led to a lack of clarity. I was only trying to answer one specific point without going into the complexity of ideas which the apostle Paul brings to bear on the subject. There is a whole chain of thought running through these verses which could be summed up in the concept of representation. That is the main thought, and my reference to the visible and invisible attaches to that.
The best commentary I have found which brings out this concept is the Expositors: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/expositors/1_corinthians/11.htm
I cannot endorse everything it says (and the author is not one I would normally reference), but it seems to me to bring out the essence of what is being taught, especially the following two paragraphs:
---Begin quotation---
This subordination of the woman to the man belongs not merely to the order of the Christian Church, but has its roots in nature. "Man is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." Paul’s idea is that man was created to represent God and so to glorify Him, to be a visible embodiment of the goodness, and wisdom, and power of the unseen God. Nowhere so clearly or fully as in man can God be seen. Man is the glory of God because he is His image and is fitted to exhibit: in actual life the excellences which make God worthy of our love and worship. Looking at man as he actually and broadly is, we may think it a bold saying of Paul when he says, "Man is the glory of God"; and yet on consideration we see that this is no more than the truth. We should not scruple to say of the Man Christ Jesus that He is the glory of God, that in the whole universe of God nothing can more fully reveal the infinite Divine goodness. In Him we see how truly man is God’s image, and how fit a medium human nature is for expressing the Divine. We know of nothing higher than what Christ said, did, and was during the few months He went, about among men. He is the glory of God; and every man in his degree, and according to his fidelity to Christ, is also the glory of God.
This is of course true of woman as well as of man. It is true that woman can exhibit the nature of God and be His glory as well as man. But Paul is placing himself at the point of view of the writer of Genesis and speaking broadly of God’s purpose in creation. And he means that God’s purpose was to express Himself fully and crown all His works by bringing into being a creature made in His image, able to subdue, and rule, and develop all that is in the world. This creature was man, a masculine, resolved, capable creature. And just as it appeals to our sense of fitness that when God became incarnate He should appear as man, and not as woman, so does it appeal to our sense of fitness that it is man, and not woman, who should be thought of as created to be God’s representative on earth. But while man directly, woman indirectly, fulfils this purpose of God. She is God’s glory by being man’s glory. She serves God by serving man. She exhibits God’s excellences by creating and cherishing excellence in man. Without woman man cannot accomplish aught. The woman is created for the man, because without her he is helpless. "For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman."
---End quotation---
With regard to the tabernacle, it was an earthly figure of a heavenly reality. The whole dispensation was visible.
I'm not sure what to say with reference to the disciples praying. It is hard to conceive of the disciples "praying" in an authoritative action while Jesus was standing by.
My understanding is that Judaism separates men and women. One of the issues of the Christian church is that it brings male and female together. Lightfoot's commentary on the Talmud is useful background information, although he came up with some strange ideas as to the use of the veil.
GospelAdorned
Puritan Board Freshman
I have added greatly to my list of research, thank you! My new study question that I'm diving deeper into is, WHEN and WHERE are women/wives praying and prophesying while covered?
dsanch1120
Puritan Board Sophomore
That is a question I didn’t know would come up for my wife and I. We’re currently at a place where we believe it is in a corporate worship setting, but I’m still curious about the alternative views.
Verse 2, in contrast with verses 17-18, gives evidence it is speaking of the church "coming together."
- Status
