Hi, I'm David Bercot, and tonight we're going to be talking about what the early Christians believed about the head covering or prayer. I still remember the first time I saw some Mennonite people. It was probably close to 20 years ago. And they really looked strange to me. And one of the first things I noticed was that all of their women wore little caps on their head. Now, I had no idea why they dressed that way. I thought it was some sort of costume that they had brought over from Europe, something like that.
And I never really gave much thought to it until 1985. This was just a few years after I had first even seen a Mennonite. And in 1985 was the year that I spent the entire year reading the Ante-Nicene Fathers, a 10-volume set. And one night, I was reading a work of Tertullian entitled The Veiling of Virgins. And it was that work that suddenly opened my eyes to what the Scriptures teach about the prayer veil or head covering.
Now, the Scripture passage that talks about the covering is 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verses 1 through 16. And I'd like to read that now to you from the New King James Version. And here we read, " Imitate me just as I also imitate Christ. " Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me at all things, and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ. The head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. But if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God. But woman is the glory of man. For man is not for woman, but woman for man.
Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman nor woman independent of man in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman. But all things are from God. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her. For her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. Now, I had read that passage many times before 1985, and it never really meant very much to me. I'm going to talk in a minute about how it was explained in various Sunday school classes that I attended.
But after reading that work of Tertullian, I immediately went back and read 1 Corinthians 11:1 through 16 another time. And it really had a different meaning to me now. It suddenly came to life what Paul was talking about there. And I realized, you know we hardly talk about this passage in most churches today. As I said, I can remember a few Sunday school classes in different churches where we were maybe going through the New Testament, book by book, chapter by chapter.
We would come to this chapter and kind of just skim through it pretty fast. And in each instance, and I can remember two very specifically, that entire passage of 16 verses was simply brushed aside as being a cultural issue that applied back there in the first century, but it doesn't apply today.
For example, one of the churches, it was a disciples of Christ Church, and I remember the pastor who was teaching the class said, " Now back there in the first century, for a woman to show up in church without a veil on her head would be totally shocking. He said it would be like a woman going today topless to a church or appearing in public, topless. That's how shocking and different it would have been in their culture.
And so obviously, since it's not shocking today for a woman to have her head uncovered, well, then it doesn't matter. Our application would be, yeah, a woman should be decently dressed so that she doesn't shock people by the way she's dressed. And you know I accepted that. That made sense. I didn't step on anyone's toes, challenge anyone, and we moved on. A number of years after that, I was in an evangelical church. And I remember in Sunday school class, we came to this passage.
And the book that we were using for our material, or maybe it was a booklet that was printed every month, something like that. It said that in Corinth in the first century, the only ones, the only women who did not go around with a veil on their head were prostitutes. So Paul was saying this because if they did not have their heads covered, it would make it look like they were prostitutes. And so he was saying, you know we need to be sensitive to the culture of our day.
And again, that made sense, didn't offend anybody in the class, didn't offend me or my wife, and so fine. I accepted that. But I would say when I started reading the writings of the primitive Christians and then went back and reread this passage and I thought about the different explanations that had been given in Sunday school, I realized, well, number one, Paul didn't say anything about those explanations.
He didn't say, " Now, have your head covered because the only women, as you know, in your city who aren't veiled are the prostitutes. And you're going to be mistaken for a prostitute, and you're going to shock people. He doesn't say anything about that, nor does he give the first explanation that, " Well, as you know, if they're in quarants, it would just totally shock people and be considered indecent if you showed up in public without a covering on your head. " He doesn't say anything about that at all.
And the thing I realized in reading the early Christian writings is not only do the Scriptures not say any of those things, the early Christians don't mention those things either. They don't know anything about that. And number three, as I was mulling over this passage, I realized Paul did not give culture as the reason for his teaching. He did not say, " Now, I'm telling you this because of the culture that you're living in and to be sensitive to it.
" No, his explanation, the reason for the teaching was God's order is what he says. And after seeing this, I guess there's a little bit of intellectual detective in me. I thought, well, I want to get to the bottom of this. Why do these commentaries say this? And so I started digging in commentaries and Christian reference works, some of which gave these fake explanations. And none of them, not one single one of them could cite a primary source for the reason for their statement.
In other words, none of them cited any historical evidence to back up what they were saying. And I realized after searching for some time that these were simply rationalizations. These were things that commentators had made up because what Paul teaches there, what the Holy Spirit teaches there in 1 Corinthians 11, is politically and religiously incorrect in our day and age. And so we just make up something to get around the Scripture that we don't want.
In fact, the more I read and studied early Christianity, the more evidence I saw that these were just, in fact, absurd explanations, totally fictitious. Because I saw paintings frescoes, which are paintings made in wet plaster on a wall. I saw sculptures of Greek and Roman women. I'm not talking about early Christian sculptures or early Christian murals. I'm talking about just paintings that we have from Roman homes and buildings.
It's very clear from these works of art that it was not scandalous to a Greek woman or a Roman woman to appear without a veil. In fact, most of the paintings that we have of Roman and Greek women show them without a veil. So the problem wasn't the culture of Rome or the culture of Greece that required women to be veiled. Rather, it was a matter of Christianity going against the culture of the day.
Now, certainly in that day and age, there was a much greater social teaching on modesty, and it would not have been as unusual for a woman to be veiled. But on the other hand, it was not something required or necessarily even normative for Roman and Greek women. It would not be shocking to appear in public without a veil. Well, as I had said, today, we're going to be talking about what the early Christians believed about the head garment.
I know I've stated this many times that I've usually found if you want to know what the early Christians believed about any subject that's in the Bible. Simply read the entire New Testament and look at every verse that relates to that subject and then take those verses literally and very seriously. And I think without an exception, you're going to find that that's exactly what the early Christians believed on that topic.
Sometimes people have asked me, " Well, David, are you saying that without the early Christian writings, a person could never come to a true knowledge of the gospel and be saved without them? " Of course not. In fact, a person could come to a very accurate knowledge of the original Christian faith simply by reading the New Testament, if a person would read it with a blank slate. But see, none of us ever get to do that.
We're either indoctrinated when we are children, if we grew up in a Christian home or grew up at least going to Sunday school and to church as a child, or we're indoctrinated when we are first converted to Christianity. Either way, hardly anybody, ever is allowed to just read the New Testament and come to an understanding of the Christian faith on his or her own by simply looking at what the words of Scripture say.
And if an individual did personally indoctrinate us or an instruction class, we hear sermons every Sunday that tell us what the Scriptures really mean. We read Christian books. We read Christian curriculum for Sunday school. And as a result, when we read the New Testament, we hear all of those explanations rather than what the words of the New Testament say. I mean, how many women do you know who cover their head when they pray?
Not very many unless, again, it's in a Mennonite church, brethren church, some group like that. And yet we just read what the Scriptures very plainly say. And so why do women not veil their head? It's very simple because our pastors, our Sunday school material, our commentaries, et cetera, et cetera, explain away that passage saying, " Oh, that was just a cultural issue, " even though Paul never brings that word up. So now let me read to you what the early Christians believed and practiced from their own mass.
Now, the first quote and the longest one that I'm going to be reading to you is from the work of Tertullian that I previously mentioned entitled On The Veiling of Virgins. Now, let me give you a little bit of background information on this work. As I've said, the early Christians tried very hard to follow all New Testament commandments very literally and very seriously. However, in a few situations, what is written in the New Testament is not completely clear.
And there was one issue regarding this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 that was not clear to the primitive Christians. Now, it wasn't with regard to whether a woman should be veiled when she's praying. Everybody agreed on that. In fact, there's not a lot written about this passage because there was no big dispute concerning it.
The only issue that was present, Tertullian is the only one who even has much to say about that is whether or not this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 applies to all females, or at least all females of age, or only to married women. And the reason the issue was there is because in this passage, Paul uses the Greek word gyne, that we get the word gynecology today. Now, gyne in Greek can mean a woman that would generally be a female of age, or it can mean a wife.
Like today in English, it's a carryover from way, way back at a wedding. Traditionally, the minister says, " I now pronounce you man and wife. " They're always wondered, " Well, why isn't it husband and wife or man and woman? " It seems a little odd. Well, that's because the Greek word for man was also used commonly as husband. And the same practice was there in Latin, that the Latin word for woman, x, is generally the word that was used for wife as well. And for man there was also used for husband.
And I say, apparently, that usage came over into English, or it may have been the common usage in ancient German. I don't know about that. And why we say husband and wife because it was interchangeable man, husband, wife, woman. Okay, so because that Greek word gyne could mean two different things, various churches weren't sure, okay, does he say a married woman needs to do this, or is he saying all women need to do this?
Now, Tertullian, in his work, makes the argument that this applies to all females who are at least of the age of, say, 12 years old. Now, I don't personally care what Tertullian's individual view on this matter was because what we're after is what did the early church practice? On the other hand, Tertullian makes some fairly decent arguments that actually do carry a bit of weight.
But what is so valuable about his work is that Tertullian discusses what various churches did in the different places around the world where there were Christians in Europe, in North Africa, in the Middle East, in the Far East, et cetera. So this is so valuable. Just hearing from him, this is what they do in this place or in that place, et cetera. Okay, so now having explained that, now let me read to you some passages from his work.
He says, " For some talking about Christian women, with their turbans and woolen bands, do not veil their heads but bind them up. They are protected indeed in front. However, they are bare where the head properly lies. Others are to a certain extent covered over the region of the brain with linen doilies of small dimensions, which do not quite reach the ears. Let them know that the whole head constitutes the woman. Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins.
The region of the veil is coextensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound. Arabia's pagan females will be your judges for they cover not only the head but the face also. Again, he says, " How severe a chastisement will they deserve likewise who during the Psalms and at any mention of God remain uncovered, even when about to spend time in prayer itself. With the utmost readiness, they place a fringe, a tuft, or any thread, whatever, on the crown of their heads and suppose themselves to be covered.
You can find that in Volume 4 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, page 37. Now, obviously, Tertullian disapproves of these various somewhat loose practices, arguing that a real veil should cover the entire head and reach down to the robe the woman is wearing. That would mean at least you know down to the back of the neck that the veil should cover. But you can see from his description that all over the world in various regions, women wore or applied these instructions in a little bit different way.
Maybe they wore turbans or woolen bands, he said. But it's very clear that wherever they were, even where they were not so serious about trying to follow this, he says, you know some women, you know they'll just place any little piece of cloth on top of their head. But it's very clear they're understanding that this was a veil. No one was saying, " Oh, this is long hair. " We're going to talk about that a little bit more in a minute.
And that everywhere, churches were applying this, even though they were not all applying it exactly the same way. It's also interesting. It was very interesting to me talks about the women of Arabia. I had always assumed that the dress that are worn today by Arabian women and women in the Middle East was something that Islam had brought or had commanded. But it's obvious from reading Tertullian because this is hundreds of years before Mohammed that that was the practice of the women in Arabia way back at that time.
It was not something that Islam brought in. It was something that maybe Islam addresses, but the practice was already there. In fact, when we read the book of Genesis, it mentions how Rebecca veiled herself when she approached close to the home of Isaac. So this would seem probably this practice of veiling may go back very close to the time of Noah. Certainly, it was already a custom by the time of Abraham and Isaac. All right, going back to Tertullian.
And now he makes his argument about this pertaining to all females once they've reached teenage years. He says it behooves our virgins to be veiled from the time that they have passed the turning point of their age. This observance is required by truth. Therefore, no one can impose any condition on it. No space of time, no influence of persons, and no privilege of regions. Throughout Greece and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of churches keep their virgins covered.
There are places too beneath this sky talking about North Africa where this practice is also followed, lest anyone ascribe accustomed to Greek or barbarian Gentile. And he continues, " But I have proposed as models those churches which were founded by apostles or apostolic men. " He says until very recently among us, females following either custom were admitted to communion with comparative indifference. The matter had been left up to choice for each virgin either to veil herself or expose herself.
Okay, so he says there where he lived in Carthage in North Africa. He said until recently, the churches allowed the woman herself to make a decision on whether this applied to her as a single woman or applied only to married women. It was required of all married women. It was left up to personal decision for an unmarried woman. Now, that's not the practice of the apostolic churches. He just says, " This is what is practiced here where I live, " okay?
But he says, " But insofar as it is the custom to argue even from the Scriptures in opposition to truth, there is immediately urge against us the fact that no mention of virgins is made by the apostle what he is prescribing about the veil. Rather, only women. " Our name, the Greek word again, gyne. But then he goes on and we're catching his thought. He rambles a bit like all the early Christian writers. He gets back to his point about the apostolic churches.
He says, " Likewise, the Corinthians themselves understood Him in this manner. " That is, that this applied to all women, not just to wives. And he says, " In fact, at this very day, the Corinthians do veil their virgin. " What the apostles taught, their disciples approved. Those passages are, again, in volume 4, pages 27 through 29, and then on page 33. Now, I think this last argument is most definitely the soundest of Tertullian. It's an extremely good argument.
He said, " Why don't you go to Corinth to whom Paul addressed the letter and see how they understood his letter. What is their practice? " And he says, " Their practice is that all females, probably all females of age 12 or older, are veiled there in their church. So they understood Paul to be addressing this to all females, not just to married women. " So again, Tertullian's personal view doesn't really matter very much, but the evidence he gives matters a lot in his testimony about the practice there in Corinth.
Now, outside of his work, there's only just a couple of very brief mentions about the head covering or prayer veil. Because again, other than the question of, does this apply to all women or to just married women, no one was disputed that they needed to do what he said. Clement of Alexandria on volume two, page 290, he's talking on the subject of dress, actually, and he just mentions this briefly.
He says, " This is the wish of the Word, " talking about Jesus Christ, the Word of God, for it is becoming for her to pray veiled, that is, a Christian woman. Now, a more direct discussion or mention of it is in a work entitled " The Apostolic Tradition " that was written by Hippolytus. It's not part of the Ante-Nicene Father set because it was not discovered until after that set, those translations were already completed. But there he gives this direction.
Let all the women have their hair or rather their head covered with an opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering. So again, no issue about it being a veil that's being spoken of here and that a Christian woman was to be veiled. The issue here was what kind of cloth? And you know from the passage of Tertullian, it's obvious that different practices were in different places as to the exact nature of the veil. Hippolytus lays down the direction that it should be opaque.
It's supposed to be a covering, a veiling, and if it's see-through, then it really doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to do. In short, the early Christians practiced exactly what 1 Corinthians 11 says. The men prayed with their head uncovered. Women prayed with their heads covered with some sort of veil.
And nobody disputed this regardless of where they lived, whether it was Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, or even the Far East, they may have applied the veil a little differently in different regions, but nobody argued that this did not apply to them. I want to just take a couple minutes to let's reread that passage again, 1 Corinthians 11. And this time, as you're listening to it, just notice how exactly it fits what we read there in those passages from the early Christians.
Now, this time, I'm going to read it from the New Jerusalem Bible. And the translation here of the Greek is a little bit more vivid than in the King James version. We read this, 1 Corinthians 11. Paul says, " Take me as your pattern just as I take Christ for mine. I congratulate you for remembering me so consistently and for maintaining the traditions exactly as I'd passed them on to you.
But I should like you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. For any man to pray or to prophesy with his head covered shows disrespect for his head. And for a woman to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered shows disrespect for her head. It is exactly the same as if she had her hair shaved off. Indeed, if a woman does go without a veil, she should have her hair cut off too.
But if it is a shameful thing for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, then she should wear a veil. But for a man, it is not right to have his head covered since he is the image of God and reflects God's glory. But woman is a reflection of man's glory. For man did not come from woman, no woman came from man, nor was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. And this is why it is right for a woman to wear on her head a sign of the authority over because of the angels.
However, in the Lord, though woman is nothing without man, man is nothing without woman. And though woman came from man, so does every man come from a woman, and everything comes from God. Decide for yourselves, Does it seem fitting that a woman should pray to God without a veil? Does not nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is disgraced to him. But when a woman has long hair, it is her glory. After all, her hair was given to her to be a covering.
If anyone wants to be contentious, I say that we have no such custom, nor do any of the churches of God. So it's very clear what Paul said. And as we saw, the early Christians followed his directions there, these apostolic commandments very literally and very seriously. Now, I'd like to respond to some of the objections I occasionally hear about 1 Corinthians 11, objections concerning the head covering or prayer veil.
We'll just take a look at these in the light of what we've seen from Scripture and the practice of the Primitive Church. Now, I think the main objection I hear today is, " Oh, that was simply a custom of that time period. It doesn't apply to us any longer. " Well, let me ask you this. Does Paul give any time limitation on the instruction here? Does he say, " Now, this is just for this day and age. This won't apply to anybody in the future.
" Now, there's no mention of this being a temporary requirement, nothing like that. Let me also ask you, what was the reason that Paul gave for these instructions of the Holy Spirit? Was it custom? Is that the reason that he gave why men and women have to follow these commandments? Does he start off by saying, " But I want you to know that the head of every man is custom? " Does he say, " Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered violates custom? " Does he say anything about cusp?
The only time the word comes up is at the end, where he says, " If anyone wants to be contentious, we have no such custom, no custom of being contentious of going against the apostolic practice. " Now, at the very beginning, Paul sets forth the reason for these instructions before he even gives the instructions. He explains why they are important to God. He starts off saying, " I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
" So from the outset, he sets forth. The reason for the instructions I'm about to give you is headship. And he follows that right up by saying, " Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. Her that is the one and the same as if her head were shaved. So how dare we say such a thing as, " Oh, this was simply a custom of that day when the Scriptures themselves expressly give us a different reason.
" I mean, we're basically saying that Paul didn't know what the real reason was for these instructions, that he thought it was a matter of headship when really it was simply a matter of custom. And if that's the case, then he was obviously not writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But enough of such sacrilegious talk. Coursing knew what he was saying. He gives us the reasons. He gives it very expressly where there's no room at all to be misunderstood.
But let's look at this objection that this was simply a custom of the time a little bit further. When someone tells me that this was the custom of Paul's day, my reply is, " Whose custom? " Show me a culture in Paul's day that had the custom that men must pray with their heads uncovered and that women must pray with their heads veiled. Well. Well, the plain truth is that you can't point to any culture that had such a practice other than in the Christian church. It was a uniquely Christian practice.
A brother once tried to tell me that this was a Jewish custom. Really? I asked this brother if he'd ever seen a picture of Jewish men or boys praying or if he'd ever been to an Orthodox Jewish synagogue. He said he hadn't. Well, I knew he hadn't because if he had, he would have never made this claim that this was a Jewish custom. As probably most of us know, Jewish men and Jewish boys pray with their heads covered. No doubt you've seen pictures of Jewish men and boys with yamakas on.
These are the small skull caps on their heads that they wear when they're praying or studying the Bible even. And this isn't just a modern Jewish custom. It goes all the way back to the time of Moses and perhaps before. For example, let me read to you what Exodus says about Aaron, the high priest, as to what he was to wear. This is in Exodus 39. I'm reading verses 27 through 31.
It says, " They made tunics artistically woven of fine linen for Aaron and his sons, a turban of fine linen, exquisite hats of fine linen, short trousers of fine woven linen, and a sash of fine woven linen with blue, purple, and scarlet thread made by a weaver, as the Lord had commanded Moses. They then made the plate of the holy crown of pure gold and wrote on it an inscription like the engraving of a signet, holiness to the Lord, that that was on the crown that would go on his head.
So then they tied to it a blue cord to fasten it above on the turban as the Lord had commanded Moses. And probably you've seen pictures of Aaron or the Jewish high priest in various Sunday school materials or Bible dictionaries, things like that. And you no doubt remember, he always has a turban or crown on his head. It wasn't the practice of Jewish men to pray with their heads uncovered. It was the practice to cover their heads when they prayed.
So it definitely wasn't a Jewish custom that Paul is talking about here when he said that it is wrong for men to pray with their heads covered and it's wrong for women to pray with their heads uncovered. Okay, you might say, " Well, then it was a pagan custom." But no, pagan priests in the Roman world nearly always covered their heads when they were offering prayers or offering sacrifices. I've looked at mirrors of pictures of Roman murals, engravings, excuse me, statues in various books that I have.
In fact, I've even personally, with my own eyes, seen quite a number of paintings and statues, engravings in Rome itself. And what I've always seen is it's the norm that the priest, whoever's offering the sacrifices or bringing the bulls to be sacrificed, has a covering on his head. And I can't at the moment recall any such murals or engravings that I've seen where the women were covering their hair or head for the sacrifice or for the prayers that are being offered.
In fact, the only exception that I know of from my own studies would be that of the priests of the ancient Egyptian rite, where they totally shaved their heads altogether. But that wouldn't have been the practice of the pagan priest in Corinth to whom Paul was writing this letter. In short, there isn't any evidence anywhere that Paul's instructions were simply the customary thing of that day.
The truth of the matter is, as we've said, the practice of men praying with heads uncovered and women praying with heads that are covered is a unique Christian practice. It comes from apostolic teaching to highlight God's honor. These instructions were not given to highlight pagan customs. But let's be honest why these specific instructions that are given in 1 Corinthians 11 are almost universally ignored in modern churches? It isn't because that was the culture of their day to pray in this manner.
And it isn't because Paul stated that these were only temporary instructions that applied to that time and no other. Now, I think if we're honest, we realize that these instructions are not followed today because this passage in 1 Corinthians 11 is terribly politically and religiously incorrect in today's times. In fact, I dare say there is probably not one pastor in 1,000 today who has the courage and the integrity to teach what 1 Corinthians 11 says.
He knows he's going to receive an enormous amount of opposition from his congregation. Let me just ask you, how many pastors do you know they would have the Dutch to tell their congregation, " A man indeed ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man is not for woman, but woman for man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. " Do you think that teaching would go over very well in most congregations today? No, I don't think so.
So what happens is that our preachers either skip the first half of 1 Corinthians 11 altogether. They never talk about this passage. Or if it comes up in the middle of a study lesson on 1 Corinthians, well, that they rush through it very hurriedly so that no one notices what it's saying. Or even worse, they explain it away that, " Oh, this was the custom in Paul's day.
" Or, " Maybe Paul is telling the sisters in Corinth that if they don't veil their heads, they're going to be mistaken for prostitutes, none of which has any historical basis, and none of which is mentioned there in 1 Corinthians 11. And the bottom line is that 1 Corinthians 11 is not a difficult passage to understand. The only problem with it is that today's women will not accept what it says. Now, at first, it was only worldly women outside the church who rejected this teaching. But I hate to say this.
Today, it's actually our professing Christian sisters who likewise find this teaching totally unacceptable. And very few Christian men today have the moral courage to take a stand for Christ if it means going against their wives or going against the women in the congregation, going against today's culture. So just like Adam, we listen to our wives instead of listening to God.
The irony is that churches today still apply the first part of Paul's instructions, the part where he said that men must pray with their heads uncovered. Men are still told today to take off their hats when they come into church or if they're outside and a prayer is being offered. In fact, I remember being in a prayer meeting once where in the middle of the meet, some men came in. They were just very new believers, and they had caps on their heads.
Well, the preacher immediately called them down publicly and told them to take those caps off their heads. And yet, I've never been in a prayer meeting or a church service where a preacher told a woman to cover her head in church or before prayer. So what's happened is that we've termed 1 Corinthians 11, totally Hampsey Church. Today's churches have transformed 1 Corinthians 11 into the following rule: A man must take off his hat when coming into church or when praying, but a woman doesn't have to.
That's the rule that we have today. So instead of focusing on the headship of men, today's rule teaches that women are a privileged class. See, the men, they have to take off their hats, but the women don't. They can keep them on. On the other hand, if they don't want to wear a hat, they don't have to either. So this puts our Christian sisters on a pedestal above our Christian brothers. And interestingly, it's not politically or religiously incorrect to place special restrictions and rules on men.
I mean, nobody complains that, " Oh, well, this rule is unfair to men, " telling them they have to take their hats off when they come in the church and the sisters don't have to. Nobody says, " Well, this is degrading to men. This denigrates men to have such a rule. " So the truth is that our order today discerns God's order totally upside down. Now, I briefly want to address the question, is long hair the covering that Paul is talking about?
I've spoken to a number of Christians over the last several years who sincerely want to follow the instructions in 1 Corinthians 11, but they've been taught in their church that the covering Paul is speaking of is simply long hair. And the churches that teach this generally based it on verses 14 through 16 of 1 Corinthians 11, which says, and I'm reading here from the New King James Version, " Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him.
But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory for her, for her hair is given to her for a covering. " Now, admittedly, if all a person had was just those three verses and they were reading it from the new King James or the original King James, I can see where they would arrive at the conclusion that Paul is only saying that women should have long hair and men should have short hair. But of course, we don't have just those three verses, do we? We have a half of a chapter.
And if you substitute the phrase long hair or short hair instead of covering or uncovered, the passage doesn't really make sense. It would read this way if we're using the New King James, but using long hair or short hair instead of covering or uncovering. Every man praying or prophesying, having long hair on his head, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with short hair on her head dishonors her head. For that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
For if a woman does not have long hair, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her have long hair. Now, please tell me how a woman can have long hair when she's praying or prophesying, yet not have long hair all the rest of the time? And how can a man have short hair when he's praying or prophesying but not have short hair the rest of the time? Do you see it? It doesn't make sense if that's what Paul's talking about. Why would he phrase it that way?
He wouldn't limit it to just praying or prophesying if he's talking about long hair and short hair. But what's more, he says that if a woman is not covered, she should be shorn. Now, does it make sense to say if a woman does not have long hair, let her be shorn? Because that's the reason she doesn't have long hair, because her hair has already been shorn. You see, we end up with a passage that doesn't really make sense.
Now, although I feel in most instances the translators of the King James Version did an admirable job, they certainly could have done a better job in their translation of 1 Corinthians 11. And I see this because Paul uses a different Greek word in verse 13 when he says or he asks, " Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? " Now he uses a certain Greek word there, but then he uses a different one in verse 15 when he says her hair is given to her for a covering.
Now, the King James translators should have made that distinction in their translation, but they didn't. Now, in verse 13, where Paul says, " Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? " He uses the Greek verb " catacalucto. " However, in verse 15, where he says, " Her hair is given to her for a covering, " he uses the Greek noun paraboli. See, two very different Greek words. Now, other translations make that distinction when they translate 1 Corinthians 11.
For example, the New Jerusalem Bible, which I read from just a few minutes ago, it translates verse 13 as this. It says, " Does it seem fitting that a woman should pray to God without a veil? " And then it renders verse 15, " Her hair was given to her to be a covering. " So it makes it clear in the English what the Greek readers would have seen in their reading.
And likewise, in the first part of 1 Corinthians 11, where Paul says, " A man should not pray with his head covered and a woman should not pray with her head uncovered, " he uses again catacolucto, not peribollium. And again, most translations make this distinction. For example, the Moffat translation says, " Any man who prays or prophesies with a veil on his head dishonors his head, while any woman who prays or prophesies without a veil on her head dishonors her head. She is no better than a shaven woman.
If a woman will not veil herself, she should cut off her hair as well. The New American renders it this way. Any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered brings shame upon her head. It is as if she had her head shaved. Indeed, if a woman will not wear a veil, she ought to cut off her hair. The New English translation renders it, " A man who keeps his head covered when he prays or prophesies brings shame on his head.
" A woman, on the contrary, brings shame on her head if she prays or prophesies bareheaded. It is as bad as if her head were shaved. If a woman is not to wear a veil, she might as well have her hair cut off. So now Paul, in writing this passage, he purposefully uses the word catacolucto or a form of it throughout this entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 11, up until he uses his analogy to the fact that men naturally wear their hair short and women naturally wear their hair long, at least in that day and age again.
And when he makes this analogy to long hair, he suddenly and intentionally changes the word to peribolium. That way, the distinction between the veil and long hair would be clear to his readers. Now, please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. Cannacalucto and Peribolium are similar in meaning. Yet they are distinct and they're unrelated Greek words. The noun that corresponds to catapoluco is a verb, the noun that corresponds to it is not rather paraboli. It is columna, which our Bibles do translate as veil.
For example, if you have your Bible here, you turn over to 2 Corinthians chapter 3, verses 13 and 14. And here the New King James translating the Greek noun Kaluna, which is related to Catapuluto. It reads this, " Unlike Moses who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away, but their minds were blinded for until this day, the same veil remains unlifted.
" So normally we translate that word veil, and that would be the natural and normal way to translate it in 1 Corinthians 11. And I don't know why the King James translators didn't follow that. As I said, this was not something that Paul's readers misunderstood. There was no issue in the early church of, is he talking about long hair or is he talking about a cloth veil? They all knew he was talking about a cloth veil. And I've read to you those passages, which make it clear, this is how they all understood it.
The only issue or issues, I should say, being how long the veil should be and does this apply to all females or just to married women. In addition to all of that evidence, we have the very eloquent but simple testimony of the paintings on the walls of the catacombs. I visited the catacombs last year, something I've been wanting to do ever since reading the early Christian writings. And I was able to look at some of these pictures firsthand.
And during the catacombs, there are quite a number of depictions showing a woman praying. It's sometimes referred to as an orient, which is from the Latin word to pray. And these pictures always picture the woman standing with her arms uplifted and wearing a very noticeable veil over her head. In these pictures, the veil usually looks something like the prayer shawl that I've seen Jewish men use today or I've seen in pictures anyway.
And the veil flows down from the top of the head down to the shoulder, which fits perfectly the meaning of the Greek word katacolucto because the Greek preposition kata means down front. And so it's a veil hanging down from the top of the head. So what did Paul mean when he said, " Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him. But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her. For her hair is given to her for a covering.
" Well, he is simply making an analogy to a natural principle. There are certain aspects of God's order that have permeated all or nearly all cultures in civilizations of man. One of these is that, for example, all cultures have had an innate belief in God and a sense of a need to worship Him. A second such principle is that nearly all cultures have practiced some form of marriage. Similarly, as Paul points out, in most cultures, men have worn their hair shorter than women.
There seems to be a natural feeling built into mankind that this is the proper arrangement. And Paul says that the reason for this is because of the innate sense that a woman should have her hair covered. And so cultures that don't even know God have generally felt a sense of propriety that women should have hair flowing down their heads, but that men should wear their hair shorter.
Likewise, very interestingly, when women started openly rebelling against the headship of men in the 1960s and 1970s, it seemed like they instinctively realized that cutting their hair short was a way of going against God's order. And so today, you find it almost rare for a woman to wear her hair long. And I'm talking about women who never even read the Bible or have ever heard anything about 1 Corinthians 11. They just have this sense. If I cut my hair short, that shows I'm a liberated woman.
At the same time, men who want to rebel against God's order or against Christianity or whatever else, it seems like they instinctively realize that wearing their hair long is a symbol of such a rebellion. Okay, enough on that topic. Now I want to address the question of when should the head covering be worn? Did the early Christian women wear it all the time they prayed or just in church? Or did they wear it everywhere even when they weren't praying?
Well, first, let's go back to the passage that's there and look at the question, " Does this apply only during church? " Let me ask you, first of all, does Paul limit his instructions to when a man or woman are at church? No, he doesn't, does he? Nor is church necessarily the context of these instructions. I say that because if you go right before them, read the passage before them, Paul is talking about food sacrificed to idols and about eating meat at private meals.
And then from there, he moves into the head covering. So he hasn't necessarily changed gears here and gone into something else. On the other hand, right after his discussion of the head covering, Paul goes on to talk about the agape meal and the communion. And he begins his discussion by saying, " Now in giving these instructions, I do not praise you since you come together not for the better, but for the worse.
" So I could see where a person could get the inference that Paul was perhaps addressing conduct only at church. And yet, the reason that Paul gives for his instructions doesn't have anything to do with congregational worship, does it? Is a husband, the head of his wife, only during church? Why would it be all right for a sister to pray uncovered when she's not in church, but it's wrong and it's dishonoring her head if she's in church?
Why is it not wrong for a man to pray with his head covered when he's not in church, but somehow if he does it in church, it's dishonoring his head. Doesn't really make sense. In fact, generally, at least as this applies to men, it seems to be applied in all situations. For example, I've been at a number of graveside services. And when a prayer is offered there, all of the men take off their hats, even though they're not in the church, you know we're standing in a cemetery.
So it would certainly seem that the safest course to follow would be to apply at any time that we are praying or prophesying. And I know I've had people tell me, " Well, that was the custom back then that all women wore a veil on their heads in some parts of the world a veil on their face. " But again, that does not seem to have been the custom in Europe. It no doubt was in the Middle East or at least in Egypt and Arabia. But I've looked at so many mirrors of pictures of Roman and Greek women.
And normally, they do not have anything covering their heads. And a quote from Tertullian is very interesting. This is volume three, page 95. He said, " Among the Jews, it is so usual for their women to have the head veiled that they may thereby be recognized. " That tells us it wasn't the norm for Gentile women to have their heads veiled or else Jewish women wouldn't stand out as being noticeable because everyone else would have their head veiled as well. And so this isn't just a New Testament teaching on modesty.
This is something that Jewish women practice as well. I don't know about a prayer veil covering their heads when they pray, but a veil of modesty when they were in public. Finally, the apostolic constitutions, which were compiled around the year 390, say this, and it gives a lot of counsel to men and women, to leaders in the church, to just members of the congregation.
But it says this in volume 7, page 395, " When you are in the streets, cover your heads, for by such a covering, you will avoid being viewed by idle persons. " This was counseled to Christian women. Well, before leaving this subject of the head covering, I do want to finally just very briefly address the question of what did Paul mean when he said that a woman should be veiled or have a sign of authority on her head because of the angel.
Well, boy, I wish I could tell you that the early Christian writings gave a thorough and clear explanation, but they don't. Very little is written about that. And the two writers we have, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, understand the angels two different ways. Clement of Alexandria wrote, " By the angels, he means righteous and virtuous men.
Let her be veiled then so that she may be excuse me, so that she may not lead them to stumble into fornication for the real angels in heaven see her even though she is veiled. " Now, the word for angel was also the word for messenger. So when you read in our Bibles, it'll either say messenger or it'll say, " Angel. " When they were reading this in Greek, they don't know. Is this talking about a heavenly being or is this talking about an earthly being a messenger?
And Clement is assuming this is talking about earthly beings, in this case, members of the congregation on account of them so that they're not led into lust or other sin, that a woman should have her head veiled. Now, Tertullian understands it quite differently. He writes this about this passage. He says, " Paul says women must be veiled because of the angels. " This refers to the event when on account of the daughters of men, angels revolted from God.
He's referring there back to Genesis 6, where it talks about the sons of God who came and married all the women they choose. They were, it says, attracted to the daughters of men. And the early church universally understood these sons of God to be angelic sons of God, spirit beings who took on physical bodies and took wives for themselves, and they were destroyed in the flood. But these are the ones that are mentioned in 2 Peter, the angels who forsook their proper dwelling place.
That's a whole ' nother topic that maybe we'll discuss another evening. But anyway, he understands then the angels to be wicked angels, demons, that a veil is a protection against them. But again, we don't know for sure what Paul meant. The early Christians didn't know for sure. But very interestingly, even though they did not know exactly what Paul meant by that phrase, they didn't use that as an excuse to just ignore what Paul wrote that was clear.
Well, we've talked about the prayer veil, the head covering, how it was practiced in ancient times, and we've talked about how in the past few decades, both men and women have chosen to forsake God's order in a belief that they can create something better, which leaves you and I with a choice. Will we follow the world or the worldly church in their quest to create a better order? Or will we follow the order that God has given to us, even if it puts us out of step with modern society?