Why are women forbidden to walk bareheaded in all religions? Why do women need to cover their heads with a headscarf?
Each of the existing religions carries within itself a set of certain rules and foundations. Some of them are radically different. But there are also general canons that are observed in many world religions. For example, Christianity, Judaism and Islam prohibit a woman from walking with her head uncovered. Naturally, there are certain nuances in observing these traditions.
Christianity
According to biblical laws, by covering her head, a woman recognizes the headship of a man. The Apostle Paul said that submission to a man was ordained by God. And every Christian woman should gratefully accept the masculine principle. A woman's covered head symbolizes humility and is considered an important principle of the Christian faith. The scripture says that every woman should grow her hair and cover it with a scarf. Nowadays on the street you rarely see a woman tied with a scarf. Basically, modern Christian women wear a headscarf only in church, which cannot be said about Muslim women who religiously observe the laws of the Koran.
Islam
The principles of the Muslim religion are more radical. In Islam, awrah (concealment of nudity) is strictly observed. According to the Koran, a Muslim woman must sacredly honor God's advice and be pure. In Islam, it is prescribed for a woman to cover her entire body, including her feet and hands, while part of her face may remain uncovered. There is no specific clause about covering the head in the scripture, but the clause “hiding the whole body” also includes the head. There is a tradition that in Islam came from the Prophet Muhammad. All his children were girls. And he asked them and their wives to wear headscarves so that everyone around them would know that these women were from his family. In modern Islam this tradition is sacredly revered.
Judaism
In Judaism, every married woman must cover her head. Modern Jewish women can wear any headdress, including scarves, hats and even wigs. For an unmarried girl, this rule is not necessary to follow. The Holy Talmud strictly highlights the female role and teaches that a woman can show her virtues only to her spouse: before marriage she must be in complete submission to her father, after marriage the man becomes the head of the family. In principle, these principles can be traced in each of the religions discussed - the head is always a man.
As for the implementation of these canons, we now see their strict observance only in the Muslim religion. In Judaism, these instructions took on a more modern form. And in Christianity, most women consider the custom outdated; you rarely see a woman with her head covered in everyday life, unless, of course, you consider the weather conditions.
There is an ancient custom in the Orthodox faith - a woman enters church with her head covered. Where does this tradition originate and what does it mean, find out why a woman should wear a headscarf in church.
Origins and customs
This custom originated from the words of the Apostle Paul, he said that a woman should have a symbol on her head that signifies her submission and the power of her husband over her. Praying or venerating shrines with your head uncovered is considered shameful. One of the most ancient traditions associated with the church begins with the words of the apostle.
Why should a woman wear a headscarf in church?
A scarf on a woman’s head emphasizes modesty and humility, and communication with God becomes purer and brighter.
In ancient culture, hair was considered the most striking attribute of female beauty. Attracting attention to yourself in church is a bad sign, since before the Face of the Lord everyone should be humble and clear their heads of sinful thoughts. Remember, clothing should also be modest; you should not choose an outfit for going to God’s temple, with jewelry or that emphasizes your figure. In this case, a covered head will not make sense.
The scarf is worn to emphasize the woman’s defenselessness and to call on the Lord for help and intercession.
Why should a man take off his hat in church?
When entering any room, a man must take off his headdress as a sign of respect for the owner. In the church it is God. In this way he expresses his respect and demonstrates true faith.
By entering the temple without a headdress, a man shows his defenselessness in the face of the Lord and speaks of complete trust. In the church, a man renounces war and bloodshed and must repent of his sins. This is a symbol of the fact that everyone is equal before God and social status and position do not matter.
It must be remembered that a true believer is obliged to observe certain rules and customs as a sign of respect for religion. For an Orthodox Christian to come to church in inappropriate clothing is unacceptable and shameful. We wish you good luck and don't forget to press the buttons and
Please explain how a woman should treat the veil on her head (1 Cor. 11). And what should a Christian woman look like?
Thank you for your question about the proper attitude of women towards the veil. This question is clearly stated by the Apostle Paul, and if you read what he wrote with an open mind, you will not come to any other conclusion: during worship, a woman should have a veil on her head, as a sign of her submission to God’s order to be a helpmate to her husband. However, pride prevents us from literally understanding the text of Chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians and the search for other explanations begins. Likewise, for Eve, the literal understanding of God’s words “do not eat or touch, you will die” was unacceptable. She interpreted it in such a way that yesterday it was impossible, but today it is possible... I couldn’t find anything better than to refer to the International Christian Newspaper, which discussed this issue. And so that you don’t have to look for this article for a long time, I present it below. As for women's clothing, the main principle in clothing is not so much the color or style, but does the clothing glorify God, does it testify to modesty and chastity?
If she meets these criteria, she can be dressed. I hope you do just that!
About head covering
A small humorous note “The Triumph of Protestantism” unexpectedly collected more than a hundred comments and gave rise to new questions for me, as the owner of the blog. And there was also this remark: “Well, Andreas, I pleasantly considered you to be more conservative than liberal.” As a test of my commitment to conservatism, I was asked a question about my attitude towards headscarves.
“Traditional church”, “legalists”, “pharisaism”, “correct Christianity”... All these terms are now often found in Christian circles and for the most part are pronounced in a kind of conniving, condescending tone: relics, they say, of the past, grasping the letter of the law, the spirit those who rejected the Gospel.”
In addition, the “Pharisees” are attributed to intolerance and the absence of any tolerance, an uncontrollable craving for division and a fundamental reluctance to achieve unity. And also an almost manic desire to impose on the “liberal-minded” their own rules of life, clothing styles, and, of course, their understanding of the Bible.
May the liberals forgive me, but I am absolutely indifferent to them. I don’t see any desire to “impose” anything on them, much less to convince them of anything. I breathe evenly in their direction. I think the owner is the master, or as the Germans said, “Jedem das Seine” (“To each his own!”). By the way, on the issues of the notorious unity of the church, as well as the difficulties in mutual understanding between people within the local church, I also already managed to speak out and even proposed my own version of the “division” of churches, in case someone fails to get along together.
As for the crux of the matter...
Yes, in our church women cover themselves. And no one has any problems with this. In any case, I, as a presbyter, do not know about them. I believe that the question has not only an external, but also a spiritual side, which was wonderfully written about by Dr. S.V. Sannikov, whom I deeply respect. I don’t want to add anything to what this wise man wrote. (There are a lot of links today - but what to do? The reader understands.)
Of course, I am also aware of another point of view, which is that the instruction of the Apostle Paul applies exclusively to the church of Corinth. If we argue further in this vein, then other questions (such as: the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the order of the Lord’s Supper, etc.) should be left to them, the Corinthians, that is. At the same time, however, it becomes unclear why we need these Messages at all? Well, if they are to the Corinthians!
In our church, the Bible is taken literally—as it is written. Without taking into account the currently discovered (and still being discovered) “contexts”. If for centuries people have accepted the text about covering their heads in their address (hence the term “Grow your hair”, which has an openly negative semantic connotation), then why should I suddenly reconsider this issue only on the basis that someone wanted to redirect it Corinthians?
I don’t know whether it’s good or bad to treat the biblical text with respect. However, I am sure that in the near future we will not dare to take aim at the inspiration of the Scriptures, or we will begin to look for the “true meaning” of this or that expression, what “this or that Apostle actually meant”...
The next step for lovers of contexts may be to join the demand to recognize the BIBLE as an EXTREMIST BOOK. And what? Everything today lends itself to analysis and double-checking. Why is the Bible better?
But if you doubt the Word of God, then there will be nothing left at all to rely on. There is no longer a standard, a final authority, an unshakable basis for one’s beliefs. Nothing! Each will offer their own contexts. How this will end, in my opinion, is quite obvious. Moreover, this has already happened in history. Remember: " We have all gone astray like sheep, each of us has turned to his own way...." (Isa. 53:6).
You can call this “legalism”, you can call it the generally accepted rules of the local church. As you wish. But, besides headscarves, in our church there is one more unshakable rule. In this case, for preachers. No shirts unbuttoned to the navel at the pulpit (only a tie or clothing covering the hairy HruTT) and long sleeves. Whether you like it or not, if you want to preach, you can fulfill it.
The same strict attitude towards the content (preparation) of sermons. I anticipate possible remarks that “unlearned conservatives” are throwing a “blizzard” from behind the pulpit. There is a reasonable balance in everything. Personal experience and warmth will never interfere with learning. And vice versa.
Well, now, it seems, that’s all. Thank you for reading to the end.
Yours sincerely,
Andreas Patz
Head covering
« I also want you to know that the head of every husband is Christ, the head of every wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaved.
For if the wife does not want to cover herself, then let her cut her hair; and if a wife is ashamed to be shorn or shaved, let her cover herself. So a husband should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; and the wife is the glory of the husband. For man is not from wife, but woman is from man; and man was not created for wife, but woman for man. Therefore, a wife should have on her head a sign of power over her, for the Angels. However, neither is a husband without a wife, nor a wife without a husband, in the Lord. For as the wife is from the husband, so is the husband through the wife; yet it is from God.
Judge for yourself: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a husband grows hair, then it is a dishonor for him, but if a wife grows hair, it is an honor for her, since hair was given to her instead of a veil? And if anyone wanted to argue, then we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God"(1 Cor. 11:3-16).
Nowadays, the topic of “head covering” is practically not considered from a theological perspective. In most churches, this establishment is accepted as a tradition that is not discussed. Some so-called “progressive Christians” (especially among young people) secretly chuckle at such “backward views”; others patiently observe this rule not because they consider it correct, but only in order “not to tempt the weak.”
The ministering brothers most often remind us of this institution without explaining its necessity and dogmatic essence, and some lovers of external piety measure the holiness of the sisters by them.
It should be said that the intuitive reluctance of the sisters to cover their heads is to a certain extent due to a misunderstanding: why and why should they do this?
The Apostle Paul writes so clearly and unequivocally that a believing wife should cover her head during contact with the spiritual world, and a husband should not do this, that one must either not want to see the obvious, or have very good exegetical training in order to come to a conclusion through complex evidence that Paul meant something completely opposite to what he wrote. That is, reading: “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head; and every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head” (1 Cor. 11.4-5), one must assume that Paul seems to mean that this really applies to men, “well, women already have long hair , like a veil and therefore you should not take my words seriously.” But Paul, of course, meant exactly what he wrote, and not what modern interpreters attribute to him.
Why is there sincere misunderstanding and difference of opinion on this matter? In Judaism or Islam, such a misunderstanding is impossible in principle, since only Christianity proclaims the equality of women and men before God and the spiritual world. In non-Christian religions, a woman cannot claim the same position in Heaven as a man. Describing Christian relationships, the Apostle Paul writes that in Christ “ there is neither male nor female"(Gal.3.28) and from here the conclusion seems to be a logical conclusion: therefore, there should be no external signs of difference between men and women.
The equality of men and women before God is also confirmed by the practices described in the New Testament. Evangelists say that during His earthly life Christ was surrounded by both men and women, and He never drove away women, as other Jewish rabbis did. This did not only apply to the Jews, but there was no discrimination in Jesus' treatment of the Gentiles. His Divine mercy was equally bestowed on both the Syrophoenician woman and the Roman centurion man. It can be said that Mary Magdalene had even more advantages over the resurrected Jesus than the Apostle Peter. She was the first to see the Risen One. Martha and Mary were loved by Christ no less than their brother Lazarus; women always surrounded Jesus and in most cases were more faithful to Him than men.
However, equality in Christ does not mean equality in the flesh. In Christ there really are no gender or national characteristics, but are we in Christ with all our three-part nature? If you look at the collection of saints, you can see even with the naked eye the difference between men and women, old and young, Africans and Europeans. In Christ there are no all these differences, but while on earth, people still have gender, age, national and other differences. Obviously, one should not idealize the position of believers and consider that they are in Christ in spirit, soul and body. Until the moment of transition into eternity, the flesh will have certain signs, and it is these signs that the Apostle Paul draws the attention of the Corinthians when he spoke about covering the head. He does not call for wives to cover the head of the spiritual man who is in Christ, but he clearly speaks of human flesh, which is not yet in Christ.
The idea of equality, both from the point of view of the New Testament and from the point of view of the experience of the last hundred years, can hardly claim to be productive. Actually, Christ not only never proclaimed the idea of equality and did not call for it, but also did not consider this idea correct. God is the God of structure (1 Cor. 14.33), Who stands above everything and has all the elements of both the spiritual and material world subordinate to Him, which are ordered among themselves into a coherent system in which there are levels and subordination. If individual elements of this system do not want to be in their place, but begin to claim the role of other elements, then disharmony, imbalance and disturbance arise, which leads to a breakdown of the entire system.
The New Testament nowhere speaks of the equality of superiors and subordinates, parents and children, husband and wife, although everyone has equal rights before God. Christ brought to earth not the idea of equality, but the idea of unity, which presupposes consistency, absence of discontent, like-mindedness, but at the same time maintaining personal individuality, subordination (i.e., mutual submission) and the presence of a certain hierarchical system. The Apostle Paul clearly illustrates this point with the example of the human body, each member of which is in a certain subordination to other members, but at the same time has equal rights, although unequal opportunities. The success of the action of the body as a whole depends not on the functional equality (or equalization) of all members, but on their unity and coordinated interaction (1 Cor. 12.14-26). Thus, equality in any one respect not only does not exclude, but even presupposes hierarchical inequality. Not the whole body is an eye or an ear, writes Paul (1 Cor. 12:17).
A false understanding of equality led to a falsely understood freedom, which was expressed in tactless behavior during the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11.20 and 33-34), in incorrect ideas about the church hierarchy and in humiliation of the authority of the Apostle Paul, in disorderly conduct during divine services (1 Cor. .14.23) and in other aspects. Similar confusion reigned in family relationships. Therefore, the Apostle Paul devotes the first half of chapter 11 of his letter to this church to issues of subordination.
In the context of this reasoning, it becomes clear; why the Apostle Paul never mentioned the words “brother” and “sister” here, but only says: “husband” and “wife”. The terms "brother" and "sister" indicate a relationship of equality in spiritual areas, while the terms "husband" and "wife" indicate subordination in family aspects. In this discussion, the Apostle Paul is not interested in the problems of unity and equality, since he considered these issues in other epistles (for example, in his letter to the Galatian churches), but in questions of the correct hierarchical relationship.
On what does Paul base the subordination of wives to their husbands?
First of all, Paul derives the necessity and legality of subordination from the relationship between God and Jesus Christ - His Anointed One: “The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11.3). That is, Paul bases the truth that “the head of a woman is the husband” on the fact that there is a certain order in everything, which even concerns the relationship between Christ and the Father. The issues of subordination of God the Father and Jesus Christ are unusually complex for straightforward human perception. Thus, in the Holy Scriptures there are a number of places showing equality, that is, the identity and consubstantiality of the Heavenly Father and His Son - Jesus Christ. " Me and the Father are one"(John 10.30), " He who has seen Me has seen the Father"(John 14.9) and others. On the other hand, Jesus, being in the flesh and acting as Christ the Anointed of God (that is, the Messiah-Messenger), invariably emphasizes by His behavior and Word a subordinate attitude towards God the Father and submission to His will. " My Father is greater than Me"(John 10.29; John 14.28). " He, being the image of God... humbled Himself... humbled Himself, becoming obedient even to death, even death on the cross"(Phil.2.6-8).
Since ancient times, the Church saw in 1 Cor. 11.3 God’s relationship only to the incarnate, and not to the eternal Son of God. This is also confirmed by the fact that the Apostle Paul used the term “Christ” here, and not “Son of God.” The understanding of some theologians that the Son of God was subordinate to the Father even before the incarnation (so-called “subordinationism”) has always been recognized as heretical.
Analyzing every step of the life of Jesus Christ, we can point out that in His behavior equality with the Father never came into conflict with His submission to the Father. He, being equal to the Father in essence, never shied away from subordination. In the behavior of people, both in relation to God and in relation to each other, equality and subordination get along very poorly with each other. Sometimes relations of equality are suppressed by relations of subordination. For example, in historical churches, the relationship of subordination of ordinary believers to “spiritual fathers” suppressed equal brotherly relationships with each other. On the other hand, in some free Protestant churches, equal fraternal relations have prevailed so much that they impede church discipline and the subordination of juniors to elders, ordinary believers to pastors, and so on. Equality that turns into familiarity suppresses the subordination that should exist in churches. Christ had an ideal harmony of internal equality with the Father and submission to Him.
The second premise on which Paul tries to restore the harmony of the relations of subordination and equality is the priority of creation. Paul moves in his reasoning from a purely spiritual environment to a historical one. He deduces the need for wives to cover their heads from the history of creation: “The husband should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, and the wife is the glory of the husband, for man is not from woman, but wife is for man” (1 Cor. 11.7-9) .
For the Apostle Paul, it was quite obvious that what was originally created by God was not an abstract man, but a man, although some modern editions of the Bible try to interpret the creation of man as the creation of a “human being” without indicating his gender. The concepts that Paul used, “the husband is the image and glory of God,” point to a parallel in hierarchical relationships. God, as the Creator of the world, having power over all creation, transferred part of his power to the man whom He created. It was to Adam that God subjugated the entire plant and animal world (1Gen.1.26). The wife was created as a helper, corresponding and similar to her husband. She was taken from her husband and created for her husband. This is the indisputable statement of the Bible (Gen. 2.20-23). The wife assists and helps her husband, and only the two of them constitute one flesh, ordained by God, and in this sense, the wife becomes the “glory of the husband.” It is from the priority of creation that Paul derives the statement that: “the husband should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, and the wife is the glory of the husband” (I Cor. 11:7). Therefore, covering the head is a sign indicating the subordinate position of the wife in relation to her husband.
A husband and wife can be brother and sister in the Lord and spiritually they are completely equal. But grace, which makes everyone equal before God, does not eliminate the subordination related to the flesh. Therefore, it is said that only in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3.28), but according to the flesh there is subordination of the sexes. The husband remains the head of his wife as long as they are in the flesh, therefore the sign of this subordination must be preserved while the wife is in the flesh.
Consequently, a married sister, having her head covered, as a sign of submission to her husband, seems to be saying to the whole world around her: “I submit to the position established by God. I do not dare, through the grace I have received, to destroy God’s principle of submission.” Thus, religious sisters are given the privilege and responsibility to explain and demonstrate God's establishment of the relationship of subordination in the family to the outside world, which is zealous for emancipation and the destruction of God's order.
Covering the head, as a sign of obedience to a certain authority, is a testimony not only to the visible world, but also, as the Apostle Paul states, “a sign to the angels” (1 Cor. 11.10), that is, a testimony to the invisible spiritual world.
What does this sign testify to the Angels? Of course, it’s not about the marriage of someone wearing this sign. Scripture clearly indicates that this is a sign testifying to the husband’s power over her, and not about the fact of marriage itself (1 Cor. 11.10). That is, a sister covering her head testifies to the Angels about her voluntary submission to her husband. She seems to be saying with this sign: “I covered my head because I do not strive to be the head. I accept my husband as my head, even if he does not deserve it, but I submit first of all to God’s hierarchy and God’s establishment, and not to my husband’s merits and my own reasoning.”
Why do Angels need this testimony, and for which Angels is it given? Scripture says that once a catastrophe occurred in the heavenly hierarchy: one of the Angels closest to God refused to obey. Pride led him to the idea of becoming equal to God. In other words, relations of equality prevailed in him compared to relations of subordination. There has been an imbalance between equality and dominance. An attempt to establish equality led to his deposition and deepest fall. As a result of this disaster, many other Angels also rebelled against submission to God. All of them were cast into hell and turned into “spirits of wickedness in high places.”
Today, Satan and the fallen angels, observing the lives of people, see that God received not only from His Only Begotten Son, but also from weak and helpless people in the spiritual world that obedience that He did not receive from them, and this shames them. Satan is put to shame not only by Jesus Christ, who submitted himself to the Father in everything, but also by people who voluntarily submitted to the ordinances of God. One of the manifestations of this submission is the wife’s submission to her husband, the sign of which is the covering of the head. Thus, the covering of the head disgraces Satan and the disobedient angels of God, as a sign that the wife is submitting to her husband, while they have failed to learn the science of submission. This same testimony, in the eyes of the angels of light who see it, brings joy in the spiritual world from God's victory over disobedience.
From these considerations it becomes clear why Satan constantly and so violently rebels against covering the heads of women. Obviously, this sign affects him deeply, since the sisters in the church do what he failed to do. This is the meaning of the words: “a sign of power over her for the Angels” (1 Cor. 11.10).
The Apostle Paul, speaking about covering the head, calls on the Corinthians to judge this issue not only from purely spiritual and historical positions, but also from the obvious manifestations of nature itself. This is the third class of arguments he gives in support of the wife's need to cover her head. “Judge for yourself, is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? - he asks rhetorically, “doesn’t nature itself teach us that if a husband grows hair, then this is a dishonor for him, but if a wife grows hair, it is an honor for her, since hair was given to her instead of a veil?” (1 Cor. 11.13-15).
What does nature teach us about hair? If a man does not cut his hair, it will not grow at the same speed and will not reach the same length as a woman's. This is a long-established, experimentally and scientifically proven fact, although it has exceptions. There are women with a slow rate of hair growth and very limited length, and on the contrary, there are men whose hair grows unusually quickly and reaches a great length. However, a general and statically reliable fact is the statement of the Apostle Paul that nature itself prompts women with the speed of growth, splendor and length of hair, which is like a natural covering, to the need to cover their heads. For men, on the contrary, without destining them to have long hair, nature itself seems to say that their heads should be open. A woman’s voluminous hair, sometimes reaching to her toes, indicates that she should close herself off from prying eyes, while at the same time inspiring men to wear short hair, nature thereby says that a man should appear with an open head as the crown of creation.
Naturally, women’s long hair, given to them by nature itself instead of a veil, does not negate the need for additional head covering. This is clear from the fact that Paul, being a sane man, could not contradict himself on one page of his epistle. If he believed that women’s hair is a covering for them, then why even talk about the need to cover their heads for 12 verses? Assuming that supposedly, regardless of the will and desire of women, they already wear a veil on their heads in the form of hair, he says: “ Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head open disgraces her head."(1 Cor. 11.5) - simply meaningless! That is, Paul quite definitely wanted to show that nature itself suggests to women the need for covering, as beings who are weaker and require protection.
From all of Paul's reasoning it is clear that covering the head is not a forced act of nature, but a voluntary act. The sisters in the church put the angels to shame because they voluntarily, being equal to men in regard to grace, submit to them while in the flesh and thereby testify to their submission to God's regulations. It follows from this that there should be no forced church rule regarding head covering for sisters. If a wife submits to her husband and God's order, then she voluntarily, independently and without knowing about these considerations, will cover her head, since it is written so in Scripture and she feels, although she cannot explain it, that such a sign makes her inferior compared to husband. Thus, forced covering of the head (either by the authority of the church, or by tradition or education) does not reflect true submission and has a low price, since in the Church people must learn to voluntarily submit to the will of God. A minister once said that he did not allow his wife to cover her head because she did not obey him at home. “Why be a hypocrite! Let both the church and the spiritual world know about this,” he said, and obviously he was right.
Using philosophical and theological arguments (the relationship between husband and wife as an image of the relationship between God and Christ), historical arguments (the husband was not created for the wife, but the wife for the husband) and arguments from the natural sphere (nature itself teaches us), Paul in conclusion turns to the arguments church tradition and established customs. He says: " if anyone wanted to argue, then we do not have such a custom, nor the Church of God"(1 Cor. 11.16).
The Apostle knew that the Greeks love to argue even about things that are obvious and do not create differences of opinion, so he declares to the disputants, who are still not convinced by reasonable arguments, that, firstly, Christians do not have the custom of arguing, and secondly, in the churches of God there is no other custom and order. There is only one that he proposes to the Corinthians, that is, the undisputed custom of praying for wives with their heads covered, and for husbands with their heads uncovered.
Indeed, all historical documents show that in the early Christian church, especially in Greece, all women covered their heads, and men wore their hair uncovered and cut short. This is most clearly evidenced by the most ancient monuments - images in the Roman catacombs and other meeting places of Christians of the first century.
Pavel’s sarcastic smile sounds in his words addressed to women who do not recognize traditions and social norms: “let him cut his hair!” that is, if the wife does not agree with the generally accepted view that hair is an honor for her; if she doesn’t constrain herself with any rules of decency, if she doesn’t care, then let her cut or shave her head! As is known, among the Jews the shorn head of a woman served as a sign of grief and shame (Is. 3.16-17), although the Greeks may have had no such concept.
In the twenty-first century, one often hears the assumption that the Apostle Paul's instruction that women should cover their heads was only a local and temporary custom. Some theologians think that this referred only to the Corinthian promiscuity of women and was due to the custom of that time to consider women as inferior beings compared to men. As Al would reason. Pavel, if he lived in our time of emancipation and sexual revolution somewhere in West Germany, Texas, Ukraine or Russia?
To answer this question we must take another look at Paul's argument. Is it based on local and temporary facts? That is, does he argue his point of view based on the customs of the area where he is located or on the specific conditions of that time? Does he think that it is necessary to cover your head because Corinth is a dissolute city or because women in Greece are almost slaves?
Certainly not. The apostle is based on eternal and unearthly phenomena. Indeed, the relationship between God and Christ (1 Cor. 11.3), to which Paul refers, remains unchanged, the history of the creation of man, man, and then woman (1 Cor. 11.8-9) is also an unshakable fact, the physical structure of the wife and husband (that is, the lessons nature) and today they talk about the same thing. And even the customs and norms today are the same as in early Christian times. It never occurs to any Christian man, especially in the East, to insist on praying with his head scoured! But in the eyes of God, such behavior is equivalent to the behavior of women demanding the right to pray with an open head (1 Cor. 11.4-5).
Summarizing all these arguments, it is necessary to make a choice: either all the arguments of the Apostle are untenable or they must be recognized as having significance at all times and in all peoples. There can be no other conclusion. Since it is impossible to cite any facts in favor of the fact that this establishment was of a local and temporary nature, it must be assumed that even today the Apostle Paul would say to Christian women: “Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head.” (1 Cor. 11.5). Thus: covering the head, as a sign indicating submission to God's order, while representing a small and insignificant fact, testifies to important spiritual phenomena. Without undermining the equal standing of husband and wife before God, covering the head is a sign of submission leading to glory or disgrace in the spirit world.
Scripture nowhere teaches that covering or not covering the head can be an obstacle to prayer, but it does clearly indicate that women who pray with their heads uncovered are dishonoring their heads, and this shame will be manifested when the Church in eternity sees the glory and dishonor of each person .
So, the Apostle Paul warns against dishonor, but leaves everyone complete freedom of choice...
Dr. Sergey V. SANNIKOV The main thing is to be an example to the whole world, a woman should wear a skirt, chaste clothes and a headscarf. Otherwise, today we’ll take off the headscarf, tomorrow we’ll put on trousers, and then show off our nudity.
Apostle Paul writes: Do not be conformed to the world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. As I understand it, to be transformed is to grow spiritually, to change your way of life and thoughts, to be different from the world both in clothing and in actions. Yes, the Lord bless you, live and do as God pleases.
July 12th, 2016 at 08:10 pm
Good afternoon, dear everyone. Article 11 of this chapter talks about hair as a cover for the head. What does a scarf have to do with it at all? let the woman cover her head with hair, it is said, and if she doesn’t want to, then let her cut her hair. The apostle speaks about this with complete reasoning, since at that time harlots had their heads shaved partially (those offering services on the street) and completely bald (those in the temple). Therefore, when such a woman came to Church, she had to cover her head with a scarf so as not to look shameful without hair, since she comes in a shameful shaved state before God without hair. The Apostle says that if you are married, then hair will grow. Harlots without hair could be persuaded to have sexual contact. A married woman had to have a sign that she was not a harlot, and a married woman had to have her head covered with hair, as a sign of marriage and her husband’s power over her, and whoever does not want to show that she is married (grow hair) then cut your hair like a harlot says Paul. Indeed, in the catacombs there may be historical records confirming the wearing of headscarves, as the author of this article talks about it, but this is a problem of the culture and time in which Christians lived and attended the Church. It is necessary not to engage in religious philosophy, but to penetrate into the culture of the time, and the context of conversion to one or another Church.
February 28th, 2016 at 05:26 pm
Thank you for your article, it helped me confirm my decision to cover my head. Just tell me how the issue of covering your head at home was resolved in your family; is it necessary to cover your head during morning and evening prayers at home, including before eating? I'm not even talking about the commandment “Pray without ceasing.” But it’s true, I can pray while doing household chores or waking up at night to feed the child.. And then it turns out that we have to wear a headscarf almost constantly, which creates certain inconveniences.. Perhaps this is the only question that I have left. God's blessings!!!
September 28th, 2015 at 23:03
You are right that the nakedness of Adam and Eve was appropriate ONLY for the two of them and then until they sinned. After they sinned, God gave them clothes and from then on it became the rule.
Corinth during the time of the Apostle Paul was a huge city. Its population numbered more than seven hundred thousand people. Since the city was located on a narrow isthmus connecting the southern part of Greece with its northern part, all traffic from north to south was concentrated in Corinth - there was no other way. This geographical location made Corinth one of the important trading centers of the ancient world.
Corinth was the richest and largest city in Greece. The population lived in luxury, and luxury and material prosperity always go hand in hand with unrighteousness.
It was to this city that the Apostle Paul came in 51 and preached the Gospel in weakness and fear. Some time later, Paul wrote two letters to the Christians of this city. In the first, he touched on a number of pressing issues, one of which is the requirement for Christian sisters to cover their heads.
Paul's teaching is not a statement of ancient Jewish tradition. The head covering was different from the traditions existing at that time, it symbolized the great principle of the Christian faith. The commandment applied specifically to Christians. Let us consider the principle on which it is based, as well as the problems that have arisen in connection with this.
The Apostle Paul sets out God’s point of view quite specifically: “I also want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3).
The head is the leader, the leader. Christ is the leader of the husband, and the husband is the leader of the wife. Every man saved by Jesus Christ must submit to his Savior and Lord. And every Christian woman should joyfully acknowledge her subordination to her husband, established by God himself.
A headdress does not make a woman equal to a man, as some people interpret. On the contrary, if a woman covers her head, then she recognizes her inequality in front of a man and expresses consent to his dominance.
By covering her head, a Christian wife can boldly, like her husband, approach the throne of God and pray directly to God. Husband and wife have equal rights in their relationship with God, but when it comes to family structure, they are not equal.
According to God's law, the head of the family is the husband. He has the final say in decision making. The wife must recognize and agree with her husband's leadership position. This Divine institution cannot serve as an excuse for the cruelty and intolerance of a husband towards his wife. He should not think that everything in the house should revolve around him and to please him.
Headship is not the same as domination. A husband should not become a tyrant. He has a great responsibility. The husband must acknowledge his submission to Christ, and the wife must acknowledge her submission to her husband. This is the principle of primacy.
The order of primacy is not a question of superiority, but a question of power. When this power is guided by the fear of God, it produces harmony, blessing and peace. To more clearly understand the meaning of headship in the relationship between husband and wife, let us trace the relationship between God and Christ.
Jesus said, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). This speaks of equality. Elsewhere Jesus said: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?... The Father who abides in Me, He does the works” (John 14:10). This speaks of cooperation. In the third case, Jesus testified: “The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do that which pleases Him (John 8:29). This speaks of the subordination of the Son. In the relationship between the Father and the Son there is a mutual understanding, or recognition, that the ultimate power belongs to the Father, the Father has priority.
If leadership and leadership are necessary and useful in Divine relationships, then how much more important and necessary it is in human society! A husband and wife will only fulfill their destiny when they joyfully occupy the position God has assigned for them.
"Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head; and every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is as if she had been shaven" (1 Cor. 11:4-5) ). The husband shows his submission to Christ by removing his head covering during prayer or preaching. And the wife shows her subordination to her husband by covering her head during prayer or prophecy. In this form, the wife must go into the presence of God to receive His blessing. A wife who is obedient to the Word of God has the right to all the promises of God given to mankind at redemption.
Having laid down the principle, the Apostle Paul lays out several reasons why Christian wives should keep their hair long and covered.
Baring your head is shameful
“For if a woman does not want to be covered, then let her have her hair cut; but if a woman is ashamed to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered” (1 Cor. 11:6). In the days of the Apostle Paul, people understood that it was a shame for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved. Short hair was universally considered a sign of shamelessness and fornication, and only fallen women cut their hair. Long hair was a sign of virtue. Reluctance to cover your head as a sign of submission to your husband, according to Scripture, is the same shameful act as cutting your hair.
God found it necessary to use a visible sign to remind us of the Divine order in the relationship between husband and wife. This sign should be the wife's long, uncut hair and a covered head.
Demanding God's Order
“Therefore, the husband should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, and the wife is the glory of the man. For man is not made of woman, but woman is of man; and man was not made for woman, but woman for man (1 Cor. 11: 7-9). Paul reminds us that at the creation of the world there was a difference between man and woman, by virtue of which man should be the head of the woman. God created first Adam and then Eve. The veil on the wife's head is a symbol of the fact that she adheres to the established God of order and honors her husband as the head.
“Therefore a woman should have on her head a sign of authority over her, for the angels” (1 Cor. 11:10). Angels encamp around those who fear the Lord and deliver them, as the psalmist says about this (Ps. 33:8). God sends angels to minister to those who will inherit salvation (Heb. 1:14).
Based on the above passages, the Angels in heaven are interested in the physical and spiritual well-being of God's children. Women who voluntarily wear the sign of power on their heads are subject to heavenly protection. Oh, how necessary this is these days! Who doesn't want to live safely in today's society? This is possible for those wives who submit to God's order of headship and visibly show it.
The veil on the head is a sign that equally applies to earthly life and heavenly life. It shows that the wife has a certain place in the order of God's creation. If she does not want to recognize her husband’s authority, refusing to wear the sign of his authority over herself, she neglects the command of God.
Demand for decency
“Judge for yourselves, is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a husband grows hair, then this is a dishonor for him, but if a wife grows hair, it is an honor for her, since the hair was given to her instead bedspreads?" (1 Cor. 11:13-15). All people have an innate sense of right and wrong, and our common sense tells us that long hair is an honor to a woman.
My wife and I never cut our daughters' hair, sincerely wanting them to accept Christ when they grew up. We wanted it to be easy for them to follow His teaching. I once heard a woman tell our daughter, “Never let Mommy or Daddy cut your hair!” Despite the fact that our culture is developing in a completely different direction, contrary to the order established by God, and many have no respect for Divine law, yet people have enough common sense to understand that long hair is an honor for a woman.
This is what nature itself teaches
Nature is a good teacher. She tells us that a woman should have long hair, and a man should have short hair. Many sincerely declare, “Scripture does not tell us how long women’s hair should be!” In the Scripture we are looking at, Paul uses three words to describe the length of a woman's hair: shaved, cropped, and long. What hair is considered long? - Those who did not shave or cut their hair.
“And if anyone wanted to argue, we have no such custom, neither do the churches of God” (1 Cor. 11:16). If anyone remains deaf to common sense and cannot convince himself of the strength of this argument, he should simply remain silent, by virtue of the apostolic authority. Paul says that neither he nor the churches he founded allow a woman to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered.
Head covering is a common practice of the apostolic church. Roman catacombs, sculptural bas-reliefs on the walls of buildings, early historical documents - all indicate that wives in ancient times covered their heads. This was a universal practice in all the churches of Greece, Rome, Antioch, and Africa.
Some believe that Paul allows the instructions he gives to be disobeyed in the event of disagreement, if the teaching is controversial. But this is not true. Can the Holy Spirit first talk about why and how a wife should cover her head, and then say that this should not be done if there is controversy?
Many argue that covering the head is an outdated custom and does not apply to them today. However, there is no such clause in the Word of God. All Scripture is inspired by God and is personally relevant to us. The Apostle Paul says: “If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual, let him understand that what I am writing to you is for these are the commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).
True happiness comes from a right relationship with God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ. This relationship is maintained by our doing the will of God as expressed in His Word. It teaches that a wife should be subservient to her husband. She is commanded to wear a visible sign of submission on her head. This sign influences the prayers of the wife, because God is happy to answer the requests of that woman who, in humility, joyfully submits to His institution. Such a wife receives blessings and is under the protection of God Himself.
The veil over the wife's hunger also speaks of her purity and modesty. It is a visible evidence of the action of the grace of God, which has done its work in the heart. A wife who covers her head and at the same time shows pride, self-love and a dominant spirit dishonors God and the church.
The Bible does not specifically tell you how to make a veil or how to wear it. But she teaches that the wife's head should be covered. Therefore, the veil should be of sufficient size to cover the natural glory of the woman, that is, her hair, and so that the fulfillment of the Divine principle of subordination of the wife can be seen by others.
There are many Christian wives today who do not cover their heads. They teach in Sunday schools and testify to others about God. Doesn't it seem strange to you that many, calling themselves Christians, want to do great things for God, but do not want to fulfill His small commands and thereby bring joy to the Father? Let us remember the warning words of our Lord: “Not everyone who says to Me: “Lord! Lord!” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven? (Matt. 7:21).
Taken from the almanac for parents
The tradition of covering one's head in church, this is not a law, but a persistent recommendation of the Holy Apostle Paul. According to his Epistle to the Corinthians, a man should pray with his head uncovered, and a woman with her head covered. Since ancient times, women's hair was considered one of the most expressive elements of female attractiveness, and this was a counterbalance to modesty, one of the signs of which was covered hair.
Even in the pre-Christian era, hetaeras in Greece walked with uncovered hair, and married women had to express their belonging to their husband by covering their heads, thereby showing that they belonged to their husband.
Where did the tradition of covering women's heads in church come from?
In accordance with the instructions of the apostle, the appearance of the believer, regardless of gender, should be restrained and modest, and cannot be a source of temptation or embarrassment. must be in the mood for prayer, express through his appearance respect and reverence for the holiness of the temple and the Liturgy taking place in it. Thus, the Christian tradition is the inadmissibility of male believers wearing a headdress in church, and female believers not wearing a headscarf.
This tradition is based on the Apostle’s statement that Christ is the head of every husband, but the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. For a man who prays with his head covered disgraces his head, and a woman who prays with her head uncovered disgraces her head, equating it to a shaved head. Man is the image and glory of God, and woman is the glory of man, since “the man is not from the wife and for the wife, but the wife is from the husband and for the husband.” The scarf is a sign of power over her, this is for the Angels.
The opposite statement is not based on a misunderstanding of the principle of equality of men and women before God. Jesus never drove away women during his sermons, the same, by the way, also applies to the pagans, whom Jesus never discriminated against. In practice, Mary Magdalene was the first to observe the Risen One, and here she has an advantage, for example, over the Apostle Peter. Before Christ, in the matter of achieving salvation and liberation, acquiring the Holy Spirit and the eternal, men and women are completely equal.
However, the mistake of some amateur theologians is that equality in Christ is not identical to equality in the flesh. In Christ, in fact, there are no gender or national characteristics, however, in nature we will all differ, until the very moment of transition into eternity. It is precisely these specific signs that the Apostle Paul is trying to draw the attention of the Corinthians when discussing head covering. He is not talking about covering or not covering the head of the “spiritual man” who is in Christ; he is specifically talking about human flesh, and it is certainly not yet in Christ.
The idea is that God subordinates all the elements of both the material and spiritual world, and they (this is the main thing) are ordered among themselves and are in a harmonious system, with a number of levels and subordination. This system is harmony, and the claims of individual elements of this system for functions that are not characteristic of them lead to disharmony, disturbances and imbalance, and as a result, to its disorder.
With Christ the idea of unity came to earth, and not the idea of equality, it is this that gives coherence, like-mindedness and the absence of discontent, and while preserving the individuality of each person, there must be mutual subordination - subordination and a certain system of hierarchy.
The Apostle Paul finds an illustration of this interdependence in the human body, in which each is in a state of subordination to the other members, having equal rights, but also unequal opportunities. The body functions successfully when not the equalization of all members takes place, but the coordinated interaction and unity of each in its place and with its functions. Consequently, equality in a certain respect does not exclude, but presupposes hierarchy, that is, inequality. Paul writes: not the whole body is an eye or an ear. A married sister, covering her head, shows the outside world her submission to the position established by God. And this is a testimony not only for others, but also a sign for the Angels. By observing people, Satan and the fallen angels discover that God has received obedience from people that was not received from them, and this shames them. Satan is ashamed not only of Jesus, who submitted to the Father, but also of ordinary handkerchiefs, that is, people who voluntarily submitted to God’s regulations. This is also the wife’s obedience to her husband, and covering the head is a sign of this state. Satan is trying to convince weak-willed women that it is not necessary to cover their heads.
But at the same time, Paul points out that covering the head is a voluntary act. This is where the shame of the angels is manifested, in voluntariness, when women, equal to men in terms of grace, submit to them in the flesh, giving a sign of their submission to God’s regulations. Therefore, there should be no forced church law on head covering for sisters.
