Principle of Headcovering & Modesty



The Bible does speak of a woman's hair as her covering, but also says it is her "glory" and "power." It is for this reason the Lord asked for us to cover our "glory" out of modesty and for only our husbands to see and enjoy. Before understanding the actual translations of the two coverings that seem to contradict each other in 1 Corintians 11, you have to ask some logical questions first:

1. If the Bible says it would be as shameful to be "uncovered" as it would to be "shaven," then one must ask the question..........How can you be uncovered and shaven at the same time? The Bible obviously speaks of each one as two completely different things. Notice how it says that if a woman be shaven, she sould be covered. How can you be both or not both at the same time?

2. If the Bible literally means that the "Hair" is a woman's covering, then do a simple little exercise and replace all the words for "covering" or "uncovered" in those verses of 1 Corinthians 11 with the words "hair" or "without hair" and then re-read the verses to see if they make sense. Do that exercise from verses 4-15.

3. If the Bible literally means that the word "Hair" is a covering, then it would only seem logical for Men to shave their heads when praying or prophesying, right? Does the Bible contradict itself? People use the argument that the Bible is referring to a woman's Hair when speaking of covering, but if this is truly what is meant by the Bible, then it would only be logical for Men to shave their hair when praying or prophesying.

Why would Paul then command the woman to do what she had already done? On the other hand, if "uncovered" means "not having hair," then that verse would mean,

"If a woman does not have hair, then she should cut it off,"

and verse 5 would say in effect,

"But every woman who does not have hair on her head while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved."

The former statement is so illogical and the latter so obvious that it is difficult to imagine that Paul meant this. The "uncovered" is thus shown to mean "not having a head covering," and Paul's statement becomes the reasonable:

"But every woman who does not have on a head covering while praying or prophesying, disgraces her head; for she is one and the same with her whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not have on a head covering, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her have on a head covering."

This is much more logical.

If you study an exhaustive concordance (with both the Greek and Hebrew translation references in the back), you will understand that the original translations of Greek used two completely different words in those verses. "Cover" ("veil"?ASV, RSV of verse 6) in verses 6 and 7 translates "katakalupto" which means "cover, veil" and in the middle voice "cover oneself." The word occurs only here in the New Testament, but it is found several times in the Greek Old Testament. It is used in Genesis 38:15 of Tamar where it is said that she had "covered" her face. It can easily be seen from the preceding verse that she did not cover her face with her hair but with a veil. Similarly the word is used in three manuscripts in Esther 6:12 where it says that Haman hurried to his house in mourning with his head "covered." Here again it is obvious that Haman had not grown his hair long to show his shame, but had thrown something over his head. Uncovered" ("unveiled"?ASV, RSV of verse 5) in verses 5 and 13 translates "akatakaluptos" which simply means "uncovered."

The words "cover" in verse 6 and "covering" in verse 15 translate from two entirely different Greek words. The noun translated covering in verse 15 is not "katakalupsis" or "katakalumma," but peribolaion, which means "covering, wrap, cloak" and is described as being "an article of clothing something like a cloak or mantle." In Hebrews 1:12 (the only other place the word occurs in the New Testament), it is translated "mantle" or "vesture." Now a peribolaion is a type of covering, but the fact that Paul uses an entirely different word shows that it is not the same type of covering as that discussed in the preceding verses. His point in verse 15 is that since nature gives woman one type of covering, she ought also to wear another type of covering while praying.

Another good example of this in the Scriptures is the study of the "Two Harvests" outlined in Revelation 14. In the original translated manuscript, the writer uses a completely different word for "Ripe" in verse 15 than the one that was originally used in verse 18. This verse makes reference to the harvest of the "earth," or the wicked, ungodly of the earth. The original word used for this verse does not simply mean "ripe, full, ready for harvest." It literally translates as "to dessicate, shrivel, dry up, pine and wither away." These are not charming terms we typically use in reference to luscious, ripe, succulent, fruit, full and ready for harvest and pleasurable eating, right? The original word used in verse 18 actually DOES translate as fruit that is "ripe, full, mature, and ready for harvest," because the writer is using the analogy of GRAPES and makes use of appropriate terminology in reference to "fruit" that is ready for harvest. BUT........in the Englisch translations, the ENGLISH word "RIPE," is used synonomously for both verses, though one would never even have reason to study their origin to understand their full, intended interpretation. Hence, the issue of the word "Hair" within 1 Corinthians 11.

Some have argued that a hat is not a veil and thus does not qualify today. But Paul did not use a word for a specific article of clothing. He does not even use the generic noun "katakalupsis" ("covering"). Rather he uses the even more general verb "katakalupto" ("cover"). "Cover" is a very general term and cannot be limited to a particular item of dress in the Greek culture. Thus a hat, netting, a scarf, a piece of cloth, or any such item that covers the head is quite proper.

In the original Greek translation ( the language used by Paul to write the books of Corinthians), the first word, speaking of Covering the hair/head, translated literally into a "Material Covering," or a "veil." The second one that refers to a woman's hair being her covering literally translates from Greek as "tresses of the head" or "to wear long hair" or "hair of the head." People often look at the Englisch translations of the Bible without studying their origin or original exact translations. So when one understands the true translations and meaning of the words as Paul wrote them, it all makes perfect sense.

Another argument is used that "Paul is speaking only to the people of Corinth" on this issue of Headcovering. There are several easy answers to that argument:

1. Paul addresses his entire letter to the Corinthians thus: ".........Unto the church of God, which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." (1 Corinthians 11:2)

2. If Paul was only addressing the Corinthians in this letter, wouldn't it seem logical to ignore all the other instructions he outlines in his entire letter? But instead, the foundation for many of our own Christian beliefs and doctrines is found in the writings of Paul. It is interesting to note that the Biblical foundation often used for reference in our own Communion services comes directly from the chapter of 1 Corinthians 11. Interesting how we conveniently "skip-over" and/or ignore those few little verses which admonish the covering of Christian women in honor to both God and their husbands (if married), suddenly claiming that those short verses were "only meant for the Corinthians and/or for the people of Paul's time." Then it would only seem logical to assume that the entire practice of Communion, its practice and purpose, was "only meant for the Corinthians and for those in Paul's time," correct?

If you are a Seventh Day Adventist, you will also find all of the translation information above substantiated in the SDA Bible Commentary volumes, written by Seventh Day Adventist scholars and educators back in the 1950's.

Upon study a study of Corinthians, one will also notice that God defines several significant beliefs in Christianity. In those verses, He outlines the significance of the marriage relationship as one that reflects the relationship with His church and His people. At one point, Paul writes about the roles and relationships between Godly men and women and the place of men as the head of the woman and the role of the women to submit to their husband or religious leader of the home and household. In those same verses, Paul outlines the proper symbols of respect, submission, and honor, as well as modesty, given to both men and women during worship and prayer and during marriage. The "uncovered" head of the man symbolizes his leadership and "power" both within the home and marriage and within the church as well. The covering of the woman's head symbolizes her respect and honor and submission TO that role of leadership and headship to both her husband AND to God. Paul even touches on the issues of modesty, and defines that a woman's hair IS her glory and her power...................a very special gift, given by God to be seen, enjoyed, and shared only by her husband, her helpmate, her headship and leader, and her partner in both life and in the church.

Some women choose to wear their headcovering only during times of worship and prayer and the question is often posed about "when" the covering should be worn; how often; how long; and where.

When the purpose and beauty of the headcovering is fully understood and embraced in the heart, as a symbol of our submission, honor, and respect to God as our Headship, and to our husbands (if married), this question is easily answered. Do we choose to show this God-given submission and honor only in church and during prayer, but neglect to reflect this symbol of respect to our God and to our husbands at any other time during the day or week? Do we put on our best behavior and most cherished clothing only for church on Sabbath and then conveniently forget to show our honor and submission to God and our husbands during the rest of the week? It is too often easy to lay aside our covering during the week and slip painlessly into the daily cares and activities of the world. The covering not only speaks to others around us of our committment and dedication to God and to our Godly marriage (if married), but it should also be a constant reminder to ourselves, to take care in our actions, our speech, and our treatment toward others. The presence of Godly modesty is often a silent, guiding influence to direct our daily lives with respect and honor as children of God, and also provides an invisible wall of protection from the endless attacks and temptations from the world around us. When the headcovering is understood to be a statement of modesty and meek humility before God, we embrace it as part of our clothing as closely as we would embrace our most intimate apparel. To the woman who cherishes her headcovering, it would be to her as nakedness to go without.

Yes, Paul admonishes to wear a covering during times of prayer and worship. But should this not be our attitude at ALL times? The commandments of God admonish us also to keep holy the Sabbath day and gives no other indication of requirements for the other six days of the week. Does this mean that we can conveniently forget and disregard our convictions, our beliefs, and our entire identity as a God-fearing people except on Sabbath? I pray that you will find the answers to those questions in your own private devotions.

Some women are stringent about wearing their coverings twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, even to bed at night. God created a balance to all things, and He certainly created the "glory" and "honor" of a woman's hair to be enjoyed by her husband and even her children in the private sanctuary of the home. There is nothing more relaxing and enjoyable than to take pleasure in the free-flowing naturalness of freshly-washed or brushed hair. Just like all parts of our bodies, it needs to relax, to breathe, to re-invigorate itself from the confines of the covering and from the stress and abuse of daily life. The choice to cover at night is, of course, a private conviction between each woman and God, but it does not seem logical, nor healthful or balanced for the hair to suffer such suffocation, nor to deny a Godly husband the joy and beauty of its pleasures.

The Lord had a very simple, yet beautiful way of outlining in Scripture His plan for us by using practical examples that we can understand and with which we can identify. It is only through the progression and selfishness of mankind that these things have been forgotten and mis-placed through centuries of misinterpretation to be ultimately "POLITICALLY-CORRECT" in modern society. With the roles of men and women completely reversed and obolished, and the absolute disdain for words like "SUBMISSION" and "OBEY," it is quite clear why society needs to completely obliterate anything that would remotely symbolize God's original plan for the roles of men and women........all of which were designed to reflect His own relationship with His beloved church in a very beautiful and simple way.

Lastly, but not least, I have several questions that always go unanswered:

1. If the verses are speaking of only Hair as a woman's covering, at what point in the chapter does Paul's meaning of a Man's covering versus a Woman's covering, change to literally meaning "Hair?" Paul first says that a man is dishonoured if his head is covered. So if this is to be taken literally, then a man should be shaven or he is dishonoured, correct?

2. If the practice of a material covering over the hair is no longer relavent in today's society.............. Why, then, do Men continue to remove their hats during times of worship, prayer, or for special formal occasions in a gesture of respect? Why would such a practice still be required of Men, but no longer for Women?

Do you see the contradictions of interpretations of these Scriptures in modern society? It seems that modern society prefers to interpret Scripture according to "Convenience" rather than according to what GOD has instructed.

With regards to a plain, "uniform" style of dress.......one that is significant-to a particular church or people, over and above the issue of Modesty alone...... Seventh-day Adventists should well note the writings from the pen of Inspiration, written well over 100 years ago:

"It would be pleasing to God if there was greater uniformity in dress among Christians. The style of dress formerly adopted by the Friends (Quakers) is commendable. Many of them have backslidden, and although they may preserve the uniformity of color, yet they have indulged in pride and extravagance, and their dress has been of the most expensive material. Still their selection of plain colors, and the modest and neat arrangement of their clothing, is worthy of imitation by all Christians.

(Notice the writer advocates the ORIGINAL - "former" - style of dress for which the Quakers were once known and from which they were backsliding even in the writer's day.) The writer continues...................

"The children of Israel, after they were brought out of Egypt, were commanded to have a simple ribbon of blue in the border of their garments, to distinguish them from the nations around them, and to signify that they were God's peculiar people. The people of God are not now required to have a special mark placed upon their garments. But in the New Testament we are often referred to ancient Israel for examples. If God gave such definite directions to his ancient people in regard to their dress, will not the dress of his people in this age come under his notice? Should there not be in their dress a distinction from that of the world? Should not the people of God, who are his peculiar treasure, seek even in their dress to glorify God? And should they not be examples in point of dress, and by their simple style rebuke the pride, vanity, and extravagance of worldly, pleasure-loving professors? God requires this of his people. Pride is rebuked in His word."
(The Health Reformer, February 1, 1872)
© Plainly Dressed 2003-2008