Head covering saga Part 3 - Some common questions

Thanks for making it to Part 3. If you haven't read the earlier parts, please take the time to read them when you're done with this post. God bless!!!

Question 1. But doesn't Paul say that if we don't want to cover our head then we can just shorten our hair ?

That part of Paul's teaching is often misconstrued and misinterpreted. In fact, he doesn't use "shorten", he says "shave off". Look at the verse in the Greek New Testament.

εἰ γὰρ οὐ κατακαλύπτεται γυνή, καὶ κειράσθω· εἰ δὲ αἰσχρὸν γυναικὶ τὸ κείρασθαι ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι, κατακαλυπτέσθω.

The word KEIRASTHO|κειράσθω is used only here and in Acts 18:18 (other than a reference to a sheep being shorn while talking about Jesus in Acts 8). Paul who takes on a vow to shave his hair is referred to in Acts 18:18. There are vows to let the hair grow long (Eg. Nazirite vow) but this reference here, about Paul, is not about a "shortening"-the-hair-vow. Its shaving the hair that we are dealing with.

Secondly, Paul is arguing that the hair is woman's glory and if she can't "cover" it in the presence of God's glory, it is as disgraceful as shaving it off (Refer to part 2). In today's culture people sport both short hair and long hair. Neither is seen as disgraceful today. So the whole situation of shortened hair being disgraceful can never apply to today's mindset and won't mean anything in the absence of such an understanding. Since that part is Paul's appeal to how they perceived shame back in the day, it doesn't change the validity of the truth he brings in this passage.  

Thirdly, excusing someone from covering her head if she has short hair,  doesn't satisfy the other reasons Paul lays out in this chapter that mandates a head covering. (Refer to Part 2 and also Question 2 below).

Question 2. Is not hair itself a covering ? Why does she need another veil ?

It mandates an answer but I would also want to ask a question in return. Let me start with the question. If long hair is a covering, how is it that people think if you cut your hair short you don't need a head covering? Isn't that when it is more needed since by the logic of long hair being a covering, it is when a person does not have long hair that a covering is more necessary since the one with long hair already has a covering. It seems totally counterintuitive to hold the argument that if you have short hair you don't need to cover the head. Now to answer this question of hair being a covering, lets look at Paul's play of words.

Verse 5-7:

 πᾶσα δὲ γυνὴ προσευχομένη ἢ προφητεύουσα ἀκατακαλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτῆς, ἓν γάρ ἐστιν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ. εἰ γὰρ οὐ κατακαλύπτεται γυνή, καὶ κειράσθω · εἰ δὲ αἰσχρὸν γυναικὶ τὸ κείρασθαι ἢ ξυρᾶσθαι, κατακαλυπτέσθω. ἀνὴρ μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ὀφείλει κατακαλύπτεσθαι τὴν κεφαλήν, εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ ὑπάρχων · ἡ γυνὴ δὲ δόξα ἀνδρός ἐστιν.

But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man [English -translation from the NIV]

Verse 13: 

ἐν ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς κρίνατε · πρέπον ἐστὶν γυναῖκα ἀκατακάλυπτον τῷ θεῷ προσεύχεσθαι;

Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered [English -translation from the NIV]

If you will notice all the words that have been formatted to bold, are the words translated to mean "cover" in English. They are all the different forms of the word Kalupto | καλύπτῳ  (which means veil) which are also underlined within the bold words above as far as possible depending on the form the word is used in. However if you will notice the hair that is given to the woman as a covering is not a sister word from the same root. After using the same word for covering throughout for only once Paul uses a decidedly different word to signify the covering given by the hair. Here's how it looks.

Verse 15 

γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ, δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν; ὅτι ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται

but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering

This word is interesting first of all because of it singular occurrence in this whole passage. Its also interesting because it means more of a covering around than covering on top. It is mostly used to refer to a garment or cloak that is wrapped around the body rather than on top of the head. It's relevance is all the more pronounced and validated because of how it is used in this passage (context). If hair were the covering of the head, then both men and women would be covering their heads which means to have the head uncovered (as required in verse 7) a man would have to shave off his hair. Which is not what Paul is saying. Also, if the hair on the head is a covering, why would Paul ask women to actively cover their head ? Do you have to actively do anything to keep the hair on your head ? No right. The whole discourse of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 would be pointless if hair were the head covering Paul was talking about. Paul specifically talks about long hair as being a covering not just hair. Long hair doesn't cover the head alone it covers other parts of the body, exactly how the word περιβολαίου would mean. It, he says was "given" as a covering. So let me hypothesize to the best of my ability with the data we have; in creation woman would have her torso draped about in her luscious hair, so to speak, as a "covering" around the body. However the hypothesis may go, it doesn't matter. It just defies logic to assume Paul was thinking that the hair was the head covering a woman needs.

Question 3. Must girls also cover their heads? Isn't it only for adults?

I understand that some church denominations reserve the head covering for women or those girls who have attained puberty thus pinning down the age at around teenage. The argument I have been told is they only need to cover their head when they are capable of conception. It doesn't go down well with the teaching Paul brings out here where he doesn't make any mention of such a clause. Secondly, if puberty is the criterion, then it will vary for each person and now that children are attaining puberty at a far earlier age than before (9 years now vs 13 years earlier) determining an age is only going to be a hassle. Its also good to remember that the Proverbs says that we should train up a child in the way he/she should go and when he/she is old he/she will not depart from it (Pro 22:6). So if it is something we know they should be doing anyway why not let them get into the mindset as a child? 

Question 4. If this is what the Bible really teaches why don't we see it being practiced now?

Great question really. Historically, from Tertullian, to Clement of Alexandria to reformers like Martin Luther and revivalists like Charles Spurgeon attest to the fact that head covering was a common practice through the centuries until we see a shift in the 1900s especially with the 1960s. So what changed in the 1960s ? Multiple cultural shifts have taken place in the last century of which three things took on center stage in the 1960s. Feminism's first wave, the Charismatic movement and the Christian music 'industry'. The head covering had already become more of a cultural and fashion thing for some parts of the world where ladies wore ornate bonnets and ladies' hats and without much teaching or an apologetic about the practice it was easy to push against it. From arguments that the hair of a woman is her head covering to seeing it as being a symbol of seeing women as inferior to men, these arguments gained popularity. Artists who didn't wear head covering could not be denounced, after all their songs and music had now begun to replace the hymns of the pews. Most of the west doesn't practice this custom strictly but a lot of the eastern world still practices head covering. It is good to remember that at the time of the reformation, most of the priestly class were not in alignment with what Martin Luther stated. The ideal sola scriptura must apply here as well. If Scripture has a mandate for us, we must adhere to it.

Question 5. Doesn't it say God looks at the heart ? So then do we really need to follow a symbolic expression if we have a heart that aligns with God's love ?

That phrase that is seen in 1 Samuel 16:7 has been used for whenever we want an eject button from conforming to any rule or observance that we need to comply with. That was about God's selection of David as King and it was not physical strength or size that others were looking as qualities for a post but the heart that God looked at. It was not a clause to justify David and absolve him of his duty to God. David observed the law and its requirements of sacrifice. He is never known to have said God sees my heart so I don't need to bring a bull to convince a priest. However, there is a more serious problem with saying that we don't need to observe symbolic expressions when we have accepted Jesus in our hearts. The reason is that chapter of head coverings is all about symbolic expressions. First the head covering itself and then the Lord's table. So if symbolic expressions are not needed do we do away with the Lord's supper as well ? No we wont. Right? When Scripture talks about a symbolic expression of a spiritual truth, though the bread doesn't become human flesh, we are still expected to fulfill that ordinance of the Lord. Why then will we be biased against the first symbolism of the same chapter ?

As I leave you to ponder over these things, please feel free to email me your questions at ask@prakashmathews.com and I will include them in subsequent parts of the Head Covering Saga in the coming days. Thanks !!