Should I cover my head in church or not? Why is there a difference for men and women? Why should women cover their heads in the temple?

AT Orthodox faith There is an ancient custom - a woman enters the church with her head covered. Where does this tradition come from and what does it mean, find out why a woman should wear a headscarf in church.

Origins and custom

This custom originated from the words of the Apostle Paul, he said that it is fitting for a woman to have a symbol on her head that denotes her humility and the power of her husband over her. Praying or kissing shrines with an uncovered head is considered shameful. From the words of the apostle begins one of the most ancient traditions associated with the church.

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. female beauty. Attracting attention to oneself 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, clothes should also be modest, you should not choose an outfit for going to God's temple, embellished or flattering. In this case, a covered head will not make sense.

The headscarf is worn to emphasize the defenselessness of a woman and to call on the Lord for help and intercession.

Why should a man take off his hat in church?

Entering any room, a man must take off his hat, as a sign of respect to the owner. In the church, it's God. Thus he expresses his respect and demonstrates true faith.

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 before God everyone is equal and social status and position does 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. It is unacceptable and shameful for an Orthodox to come to church in inappropriate clothing. We wish you good luck and do not forget to press the buttons and

Shalom! There are many disputes on this separation and we would not like to prove something to anyone in this topic. We want to explore. AT this study combined several thoughts and studies of different authors. So let's get started:

1 Corinthians 11:4-16


8 For the husband is not from the wife, but the wife is from the husband;
9 and the husband was not made for the wife, but the wife for the husband.
10 Therefore, a woman must have on her head [the sign of] authority [over] [her], for the angels.
11 But neither a husband without a wife, nor a wife without a husband, in the Lord.
12 For as the wife is from the husband, so is the husband through the wife; yet it is from God.
13 Judge for yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14 Doesn't nature itself teach you that if a man grows his hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15 But if a woman grows her hair, is it an honor to her, since hair is given to her as a covering?
16 And if anyone wanted to argue, then we have no such custom, nor the church of God.

This is a rather difficult passage, and it serves as a stumbling block for many, especially for sisters in some denominations. I have heard many different stories about Corinth of that time, and about whose harlots were shaved bald and they needed a scarf, and about various customs of that time, after digging a little in translations and studies, I offer you the following study.

First, we need to decide what Paul was talking about and to whom the words about the headdress are directed during prayer. It is no secret that in almost all Christian denominations it is forbidden for a man to pray with a hat on his head, and as a basis, Paul's words are taken from the above message, and so let's look at what Paul taught.

The custom of covering the head existed among the Jews almost always. AT old times the headdress was a sign of contact with God - the head was covered while serving the Almighty (during prayer, saying blessings, studying the Torah, etc.). The Torah instructs the cohens serving in the Temple to wear a headdress. And I am sure that Paul did not violate this tradition and did not teach others to do this, since he testified about himself:

Acts 28:17“After three days, Paul called together the most distinguished of the Jews, and when they had come together, he said to them: Men, brethren! having done nothing against the people or the customs of the fathers, I am delivered in chains from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

As we can see, Paul did not even violate the traditions of the Oral Torah (paternal customs), and even more so did not invent commandments. Although many do not even try to understand these words of Paul, they attributed to him that he invented the commandment, and even called it a doctrine.

And now the husband's uncovered head during worship and during prayer is a Christian custom in almost all churches and communities. Referring to the statement of the Apostle in 1 Cor. 11:4,7 many perceive the absence of a headdress from a man as a commandment of God. If a man, nevertheless, does not take off his headdress, this is considered as disrespectful to God.

Let's examine the statements related to this issue precisely. Holy Scripture as well as historical relationships.

What follows from 1 Cor. 11:2-16

In this passage, we are talking about the relationship of submission, as well as the features of covering (or not covering) the heads of men and women during worship.

To begin with, I would like to deal with the issue of men and whether or not their heads are covered during the Divine service, the main verses of chapter 11 are 4 and 7:

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered puts his head to shame.
7 Therefore a man must not cover his head, for he is the image and glory of God; and the wife is the glory of the husband.

At first glance, everything is clear, but there is one but and this BUT can be seen in the Greek text:

In the fourth verse, the words κατα κεφαλης έχων literally mean "hanging from the head", that is, "a man with something hanging from his head."

The fact that the word “something” is missing in the text does not matter; when translating into Russian, you need to insert it in order to recreate the meaning, however, the preposition κατα in the Genetiv case clearly means “hanging”. (also going down, down, outweighing ...), but never has the meaning "on".

Thus, it does not follow from this verse that a husband shames his head if he has something on his head during prayer, but only if something hangs from his head.

I think that Paul puts the opposite of what a woman's headscarf should hang from her head, but more on that later, here it turns out that if a man wears the same thing as a woman, that is, something that will hang from her head in the likeness of a scarf, Do not confuse it with a tallit, since the tallit does not hang from the head like a scarf, but covers the worshiper and his shoulders, that is, wraps him up, which in essence is the image of how God wraps a person with his mercy. In other words, the meaning of the tallit and the veil is completely different for women; they have a different nature of origin and symbolism.

Now verse 7 in Greek begins like this:

ανηρ μεν γαρ ουκ οφείλει κατακαλύπτεσθαι την κεφαλήν,… And it translates as “a man has no duty to cover his head…”,

agree the word “should not” - categorically forbids doing this, but “has no debt” indicates that he “does not need”, “is not obliged”, but there is no prohibition! Although οφείλει may in some cases mean an obligation, but in conjunction with ουκ- "not", it can be said with certainty that it does not mean a prohibition, since prohibitions in biblical Greek are expressed - ουκ + form of the future tense, - such as ten commandments, or apply imperative mood. Paul wanted here not to forbid the husband to cover his head, but to allow the husband, unlike the wife, not to cover her head, because the husband is the image of the glory of God, and this is confirmed by the verse "I also want you to know that Christ is the head of every husband, and Christ is the head of a woman. husband, and Christ's head is God.

The word for covering in Greek is καλύπτεσθαι, but by means of the prefix κατα it means complete, perfect covering, in other words, when Paul wrote about men we also see that they have no duty to cover their heads completely κατακαλύπτεσθαι (verse 7).

Now let's move on to the duties of a woman 5-6:
5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head, for [it] is the same as if she were shaved.
6 For if a woman does not want to cover herself, let her also have her hair cut; but if a woman is ashamed to have her hair cut or shaved, let her cover herself.

Again, it is important for us to look at what words are used to denote the words open head (verse 5) and cover (verse 6)

In verse 5, the words "with an open head" sound like ακατακαλύπτω̣ τη̣ κεφαλη̣ - literally means "with an uncovered head" and in this verse there is no indication of how the head should be covered, but in verse 6 the word "does not want to be covered" is the word ου κατακαλύπτεται - not covered, and pay attention to the prefix κατα - which shows how the head should be covered - completely. And this confirms verse 15, but if a woman grows her hair, is it an honor for her, since hair is given to her as a covering? yes, this verse confirms that a woman should completely cover her head, since the word instead of - αντι - also has the meaning - likeness -, when read correctly, it turns out that nature teaches a woman and her hair is given in the likeness of a coverlet, and not instead.

Verse 10 is evidence of such a reading: "Therefore, a woman must have on her head [the mark] of power [over] [her], for the Angels," if this is hair, as some say, then tell me that men do not have hair? Yes, then what a sign it is, if both one and the other have hair.

And verse 13 sums it up: 13 Judge for yourselves, is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her [head] uncovered? Again we meet the word ακατακάλυπτον with the same prefix ακατα.

It can be concluded from verses 5,6,13 that a cap or a hat, or such stripes on the head that are now fashionable for women, are not a sufficient covering. Most likely, this refers to a covering in the form of a scarf or bedspread, leaving only the face free. That is, what is commonly called a prayer veil. And if it also covers the face, then this is not a mistake, but not necessarily.
I dare to give such an understanding: sin entered the world through a wife, and she should be more ashamed than her husband and, if possible, cover her body more strongly. The Apostle pointed this out in 1 Tim. 2. Traditionally, Christian and Jewish women have always worn a veil, or at least a headscarf, as can be seen from old images and writings. The departure from this tradition is currently associated with a general trend towards shamelessness and equality, the so-called feminism.

I don't want you to make revolutions in your communities, but you also need to remember that it is right to teach people! You can explore this text yourself and consider the tradition of that time. If at that time Paul had declared what we declare and say that he taught so, then believe me, no one would have let him into the synagogue after the first such trick. I mean, the fact that any reading, be it Torah or Haftar, was always done with a covered head, like prayer, and if Paul acted as we teach, then all synagogues would be closed to him.

It is clear that those who have been taught not to cover their heads in prayer should not begin to cover their heads after such a study, Scripture clearly leaves the right for a man to do this or not, but there is also no need to condemn those who cover their heads (kippah, etc.) also their choice and right. There is no sin in this, but it is also necessary to teach women to cover their heads correctly so as not to shame her.

It is also worth considering another passage of Scripture, although at first glance it may not deal with a specific topic about behavior in the congregation, but still it takes a lot important point when a woman had to bare her head before God. I am even more than sure that Paul took this very passage of Scripture as a basis, and not the Corinthian tradition. understandable origin.
Let's read another passage of Scripture:

Numbers 5:11-22
11 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying:
12 Declare to the children of Israel, and say to them, If a wife betrays anyone and fails to be faithful to him,
13 And someone will sleep with her and pour out semen, and it will be hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she will be defiled in secret, and there will be no witness against her, and she will not be found out,
14 And if a spirit of jealousy comes upon him and is jealous of his wife when she is defiled, or if a spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he is jealous of his wife when she is not defiled,
15 Let a man bring his wife to the priest, and sacrifice for her a tenth of an ephah of barley flour, but he shall not pour oil on her, nor put in frankincense, for this is an offering of jealousy, an offering of remembrance, remembrance of iniquity;
16 but let the priest bring her and set her before the Lord,
17 And the priest shall take the holy water in an earthen vessel, and the priest shall take the earth from the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water;
18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and bare the head of the woman, and put into her hand the offering of remembrance, which is an offering of jealousy, and in the hand of the priest shall be bitter water, which brings a curse.
19 And the priest shall curse her and say to the woman: If no one has slept with you, and you have not become defiled and have not betrayed your husband, then you will not be harmed by this bitter water that brings a curse;
20 But if you have been unfaithful to your husband and become defiled, and if anyone has slept with you except your husband,
21 Then let the priest curse the woman with an oath of cursing, and the priest shall say to the woman, May the Lord give you over to a curse and an oath among your people, and may the Lord make your bosom fallen and your belly swollen;
22 And let this water, which brings a curse, pass into your insides, so that your stomach [your] swells and your bosom [your] falls down. And the wife will say: Amen, amen.

As anyone who reads this passage in verse 18 can see, it is described when a woman had to open her head before God. And this was when there was a reason and she was suspected of treason. Then the sign of humility was removed. If the issue was resolved in her favor, everything was restored, she again wore a sign of humility, fidelity on her head.

It can be seen for some reason - it was necessary for the angels.

I think that Paul writes in this way to show that this is not a tradition, but that God commands it to be so and that these are spiritual things.
That's why he talks about harlots, not because there were harlots in Cornif who cut their heads, this is complete nonsense. Paul recalls the passage in Numbers about the only reason a woman bared her head before God was when a woman cheated on her husband, that is, she became an adulteress! And this means that she was no longer under her husband and was not obedient either to him or to God, who made one flesh out of them!

Now let's recap what has been said:

There is no commandment from God that a husband during worship or when he prays or prophesies must bare his head. The husband is left free to have a headdress or not, this should not serve as a stumbling block or a pretext for violating unity and the Lord's love. Just as a woman must cover her head completely, which serves visible sign for the Angels, her obedience to her husband and the Lord.

VN:F

If you find a broken or non-existent link. Please let us know via feedback..

In our time, there is a pious tradition: in the temple, women cover their heads, and men take off their hats. How did this "order" come about? And does it mean that during home prayer women should cover their heads? Is it possible to come to the temple not in a headscarf, but in a hat? Are girls allowed to be bareheaded in church? In this article, we will look at how the tradition of covering the head appeared, what it meant for Christians in the first centuries, and how it relates to our time.

What does the apostle Paul say about covering the head?

There is an opinion among Christians that the head covering is one of the main requirements for the appearance of a woman in the temple.

It is supported by the words from the First Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians:

And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head, for it is the same as if she were shaved. For if a woman does not want to cover herself, then let her have her hair cut; but if a woman is ashamed to be shorn or shaved, let her cover herself (1 Cor. 11:5-6).

Firstly, covering the head is a symbol of the subordination of the wife. Subordination to whom? To my husband and God. Just do not take the word "submission" in the sense of family tyranny.

Just as Christ rules in the Church, so in the small church - the family - the husband rules. The primacy of the husband is manifested in his care and responsibility for his wife and children.

Secondly, covering the head indicates the humility and chastity of a woman. To better understand the meaning of this statement, we must turn to those historical realities in which the apostle Paul wrote an appeal to the Corinthians.

Why didn't women loosen and cut their hair in ancient times?

Imagine that you are in 1st century Corinth. It's rich Greek city with two ports, 700 thousand people, representatives different cultures and religions. Many pagan temples were built in Corinth, one of the most famous is dedicated to the goddess of love and fertility, Aphrodite. Cult prostitution flourishes in this temple. The servants of Aphrodite are easily distinguished by their shaved heads.

In addition, not only temple prostitution is common in the city. On the streets you can easily meet harlots, they attracted the attention of men with their hair loose and not hidden under a scarf.

That is why the apostle Paul pays attention to the head covering for a woman. If you do not want to resemble a harlot, wear a headdress so as not to seduce an outsider. If you do not want to be like the servant of Aphrodite, grow your hair, because they are the natural covering of a woman.

So that no one doubts the purity and morality of the Corinthian Christians, the apostle advises covering the head for "praying or prophesying" women. This rule has been preserved in many churches to this day.

What should a modern woman in the temple look like?

Head covering is one of the important elements of the "church dress code". And it doesn't matter what kind of headdress you wear - be it a scarf, a scarf, a hat, a beret. The apostle Paul uses the word "cover", not a scarf, and you can even cover your head with a hood.

Girls and girls (it is believed that approximately up to adolescence) can be in the temple without a headdress. Even on Orthodox icons holy women are depicted with a covered head, and girls - without a cover. You can clearly see this on the icon of the saints. Martyrs Vera, Nadezhda, Lyubov and their mother Sophia.

But today, believing mothers often tie handkerchiefs to their daughters in infancy, so that they "get used to it."

If everything is more or less clear with the presence of a headscarf on a woman in the temple, then how should Christians be during home prayer? Is head covering an important condition here too?

Is it possible to pray at home without a headscarf?

Even among priests opinions on this issue do not coincide.

Most Conservative believe that married women should cover their heads not only in the temple, because the headdress indicates the humility of the spouse and obedience to her husband. An excellent illustration of this point of view can be found in the book of Genesis. Rebekah, the wife of Isaac, only seeing her future husband in the distance, took the veil and covered herself (Gen. 24:65).

Other priests believe that this example is worth considering in a historical and cultural context. Our cultural code has not enshrined the rule of mandatory head covering for women. As difficult as it is to imagine Muslim women without a hijab, it is so difficult to imagine all modern women Slavic appearance in headscarves and scarves. A scarf on the head of a young girl, especially in warm time year, may attract additional attention and tempt others to condemnation.

Therefore, there was third opinion: it is worth covering one's head in the temple, and, if possible, during home prayer. The Apostle Paul recalled the praying woman, without specifying whether she was in the church or not.

Archpriest Andrey Efanov believes that covering the head during the morning and evening rule disciplines a woman, helps her focus on prayer.

There is also fourth vision: in the temple, women should pray with their heads covered, but in all other situations it is possible to do so. Moreover, the Apostle Paul calls us to unceasing prayer, that is, to constant remembrance of God. And such a prayer should not depend on external circumstances- the presence or absence of scarves, appearance, mood, environment, geographical location.

Daniel Wallace Doctor
Associate Professor, Teacher of the New Testament
Dallas Theological Seminary
[email protected]

Translated specifically for the site

The following "exegesis" (if we may call it that) is nothing more than an attempt to arrive at an answer that satisfies both the hermeneutic and the practical at the same time. sore point implied by this passage: first, what does “covering the head” mean here, and second, how does this scripture apply to us today?

There are several common interpretations of this text, but among evangelical churches three or four of the following come to mind:

(1) This text not applicable by now. Paul speaks of the "custom" he passed down, i.e. traditions. Accordingly, since there is no such tradition in our time, we should hardly pay attention to this text.

(2) "Head covering" is hair. Therefore, as applied to us today, this means that women should wear (relatively) long hair.

(3) "Head covering" is in literally head covering and text refers to the present just like in Paul's time. This point of view has two options:

• All women must wear a veil over their heads during church services.
• The veil must be worn by women during church services only when they are publicly praying or prophesying.

(4) "Head Cover"— a symbol of something that mattered in ancient time, and for which the corresponding symbol should be found in our time, although not necessarily a veil on the head. This point of view is divided into the same two sub-points as #3.

My beliefs are the same as position #4. I stick to her second option: Women should only wear a symbol when they are publicly praying or prophesying. Critical reflections on each of these points of view follow.

Position "This text is not relevant to the present time"

This view is easy to refute. It is based on a misinterpretation of the words "tradition" ("παράδοσις" [parAdosis]) in verse 2 and "custom" ("συνήθεια" [sun Etheia]) in verse 16. A defense of this position could be built on verse 16, but only if disregard verse 2.

Of the two Greek words the term "συνήθεια" from verse 16 describes less strict traditions. This word is used when talking about some kind of custom or habitual way of doing things. It is mentioned only three times in the New Testament (1 Cor. 11:16, John 18:39, 1 Cor. 8:7). In In. 18 - just points to a noble custom (the practice of releasing a prisoner on Easter). While one might surmise that the custom described in John 18 arose from oral Jewish tradition and therefore became law for the Jews, we have no evidence to support this. Morris believes that this custom is "shrouded in mystery". Possibly, but not necessarily, it is this custom that is referred to in Psakhime- Chapter 8, Mishnah 6. Thus, we do not have sufficient evidence to say for sure that this tradition was binding. In 1 Cor. 8:7 the meaning of the word has the same connotation. We are talking about those accustomed to separating the meat offered to idols from the non-idolized converts and the need careful attitude to them. The "custom" that they, as Christians, still in some sense adhere to, is not something Paul establishes here. On the contrary, he would rather have them be strong Christians than continue to follow this custom. That is, "custom" here also does not impose obligations, but is performed from personal preference or understanding. To summarize, the meaning of the Greek term "custom" in 1 Cor. 11:16 gives us the right to conclude that the wearing of a veil on the head by women in the early church may have been nothing more than a local custom of the time. However, once we look at verse 2, it becomes clear that verse 16 is talking about much more.

In verse 2, Paul praises the church for holding to the traditions (“παραδόσεις” [paradOseis], dictionary form “παράδοσις” [parAdosis] – “tradition”) that he gave them (“παρέδωκα” [parEdoka], dictionary form “ παραδίδωμι" [paradIdomi] - "I pass"). In verse 3 he proceeds to describe one of these legends (using the connecting particle-bunch "δέ" [de] - "same", "also"). That verse 3 opens the description of one of the traditions is evident from the fact that the word “praise” (“ἐπαινῶ” [epainО]) is repeated before the description of the tradition: the first time in verse 2 and the second time in verse 17. Each of the two paragraphs beginning with the words “I praise” reveals how the church is following Paul’s instructions regarding corporate worship. (Perhaps the tradition of covering the head was obeyed better than the ordinances regarding the communion of bread, because Paul does not say "I do not praise" in the first case, but emphasizes in the second (verse 17)).

Verse 2 is notable for the strength of the terms "παραδίδωμι" and "παράδοσις". The verb "παραδίδωμι" is used very often in the sense of "transmitting the truth to the next generation." It is mentioned 19 times in Paul's epistles. In all cases, when this verb is used in the positive context of voluntary surrender (i.e., as opposed to "handing over" the offender to the authorities, etc.), it has the character of a serious dedication, talking about the transfer of doctrine. Compare: Rome. 6:17 (“obeyed from the heart to that manner of doctrine which betrayed themselves»); 1 Corinthians 11:23 (“For I received from the [Him] Lord that which you handed over»); 1 Cor. 15:3 (doctrine of Christ's death and resurrection: "For I originally taught you, which [himself] received, [that] [is] that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures”). In other cases (negative context) this word means "put someone in jail, death, etc." The second meaning is partly present in the first and gives it a deeper color: the verb carries the meaning of devoting oneself to something - both with the mind and with the whole life. Christ gave Myself Himself for us (Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:2, 25).

The noun "παράδοσις" is no less important for the formation of theological conclusions. In Paul this word occurs only five times, but when it is used in the sense of "tradition", which he, as a Christian, accepts, then such traditions are obligatory for everyone to follow. In 2 Thess. 2:15 Paul instructs the believers to stand firm and hold on to the tradition he gave them. In 2 Thess. 3:6 he commands believers to keep away from any believer who does not adhere to the traditions received from him. So it's impossible to ignore semantic load both the verb "παραδίδωμι" and the contextually similar use of the noun "παράδοσις". These words make it impossible to interpret the word "tradition" as simply a "good custom" that can be abandoned if desired.

How to reconcile 1 Cor. 11:2 with 1 Cor. 11:16? Verse 2 governs verse 16. I.e. because the course of action that in question, was called "παράδοσις", he had the status of orthopraxy ("rules", "correct practice"). And because it was a doctrine, it was carefully followed in all the churches. Using the example of other churches in verse 16, the word "custom" Paul refers to is how these churches practiced the doctrine. It's like saying, “Christ died for you; therefore you must hold the communion. Besides, other Christians are already doing it, and no one has a different course of action.” The application of the doctrine is accompanied and expressed in a certain course of action, a physical form.

The summary of the above - the Greek text of Scripture does not support the thesis: "1 Cor. 11:2-16 is irrelevant to the present." This position is based on some translations of the Bible; at the same time, traditions and customs are interpreted as something optional and the fact is omitted that with these words (“tradition”, “transmitted”) Paul described the commandments about the death and resurrection of Christ, which he certainly did not consider optional.

Position "Head covering is hair"

One of the most popular views today is that the veil was the woman's hair. This position is more difficult to evaluate. It is based on the exegesis of verse 15:

"ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται" [he kome anti peribolAiu dedotai] - "hair was given to her instead of a veil"

Among supporters of this view, it is often believed that in verses 2-14 the woman wears or does not wear a veil. And then it makes sense that verse 15 explains that the veil is her hair. Numbers 5:18 is also often cited for argument. For example, in Hurley we read:

“In Numbers 5:18, the adulterer was accused of neglecting her relationship with her husband; she gave herself to another. A sign of this was that the hair, which was laid up, was loose. In the original Hebrew text, a verb that is used to describe both loose hair and a bare head, in Old Testament(פרע), on Greek language translated with the word akataqAluptos is the same word Paul uses when he speaks of an uncovered head. Did Paul not ask the Corinthian women not to wear a veil, but to wear their hair in a certain way that would distinguish them as women?

The quotation from Hurley seems to imply that in the Septuagint at Numbers. 5:18 is the word "ἀκατακάλυπτος" [akatak Aluptos]. If this were the case, then it would be possible that in 1 Cor. 11 Paul was referring to this text. However, this word is not in the book of Numbers! Indeed, it is almost impossible to use the mention of this dictionary form in the Septuagint in the argument of this position: it occurs in only one OT verse (Lev. codex, taking into account corrections made by scribes (A c); in the Vatican codex - "ἀκάλυπτος" [akAluptos], and in the Alexandrian original text (A *) - "ἀκατάλυπτος" [akatAluptos]). Claim that Paul in 1 Cor. 11 uses "ἀκατακάλυπτος" [akatakaluptos] in the sense of "dissolute" as absurd as to conclude: "All Indians walk in single file after each other, at least the one I saw followed the one in front." Further, the Bauer-Dunker Greek Lexicon (BAGD) gives the meaning of the word in 1 Cor 11 "uncovered" and does not allow the translation option "loose". The dictionary meaning of the word has been deduced from the available Greek and classical literature. Thus, Hurley's argument is not supported by sufficient evidence.

Moreover, it is important to note two points: (1) in verses 2-14 there are no words that are translated as "covering." Those. just because hair is called a veil in verse 15 does not necessarily mean that the verses above are also talking about hair. (2) In this passage, Paul refers to resemblance between the long hair and the veil. But this is precisely what speaks in favor of the fact that hair and a veil are not the same thing. Because they are named similar, they are not identical. Notice the following verses.
11:5 and every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered, puts her head to shame, for [it] is the same as if she were shaved.
11:6 For if a woman does not want to cover herself, let her also have her hair cut; but if a woman is ashamed to have her hair cut or shaved, let her cover herself.
11:7 So a husband should not cover his head...
11:10 Therefore, a woman must have on her head [the sign of] authority [over] [her]
11:13 Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her [head] uncovered?
11:15 but if a wife grows her hair, it is an honor for her ...

Several logical observations can be made from this. (1) If "veil" is "hair," then all men must shave their heads or be bald, because men must not cover their heads. (2) If "covering" is "long hair," then verse 6 sounds like a tautology; "do not wear long hair" and "cut hair" describe one thing - "wear short hair": "If a woman does not wear long hair, she must cut her hair." And as a result, the argument (that the absence of a veil during public prayer/prophecy is as bad as a shorn woman) ceases to sound like an argument. (3) The very adherence to this point of view shows its inconsistency. Replacing “head covering” with “hair” when reading, one has to perform several exegetical circles and move away from the direct meaning of the text. (4) If hair and head covering are one and the same, then verses 10 and 15 contradict each other. In verse 10, the veil is the "sign of power" over the woman, the symbol of her submission and obedience, and in verse 15 it is her glory. Paul begins verse 10 with a reference to verse 9 (“wherefore”): because “a woman was made for man,” she must wear the sign of authority over her on her head. In the Greek text, verse 15 is even more expressive, since the pronoun "she" is in Dative case benefits (Dativus commodi) – i.e. she is the object in whose interests glory is given; she is the recipient of fame; literally "this is honor / glory - to her", or "for her, for her benefit." However, it is unlikely that these verses contain almost the opposite meaning!

So, to insist that it is long hair that is the woman's veil is to miss the function of both the veil and the long hair that Paul speaks of: the veil shows the woman's submissiveness, the hair her glory. The similarity between the veil and hair is that their absence (veil during prayer or prophecy; shaved hair at any time) is a humiliation and shame for a woman.

Position "Head covering - the literal head covering applicable today"

The point of view of "literal head covering and applicable in this form," in a sense, is the easiest to defend in a matter of interpretation; however, she is the hardest to come to terms with when it comes to practical submission. Since it is dangerous to ignore one's own conscience when it comes to the truths of Scripture, I have followed this position until recently. To be honest, I didn’t like it (and this is far from the most popular position today). But I could not, being honest with myself, refuse it. The essence of this position boils down to three assumptions: (1) the text refers to a literal head covering; (2) Paul was writing about a serious institution, not just a social convention; and (3) the head covering itself is an integral part of the Pauline position reported in this passage. The following are arguments supporting these claims.

Thus, this argument is an important theological conviction (as opposed to just the custom of that society) based on several key tenets of Christian doctrine: (1) trinitarian principles, (2) creation, (3) angelology, (4) general revelation, and (5) church practice. Therefore, for Paul, deviation from his head covering instruction meant distorted angelology, a misunderstanding of anthropology and ecclesiology, destructive trinitarianism, and a failure in general revelation. Moreover, focusing only on verse 16 (as the first position “does not apply to us” does) is like going through the most important part of this passage with your eyes closed.

Practical adherence to this position has two options: (1) by women during the entire church service; (2) women when they pray or prophesy in public. Without going into details, I support option two simply because that is how the teaching in verses 4-5 is formulated. After referring to the theological foundations in the introduction (verses 2-3), Paul outlines the subject of his conversion—men and women praying or prophesying in the congregation. That this theme is the focus of attention is evident from the fact that it is repeated in verse 13 (“pray to a woman”). It seems to me unjustified to make the limits of application wider than suggested in the topic (verses 4-5). Thus, all arguments and principles are directed towards and applicable to women praying and prophesying in a public place. In addition, if this limitation of application is correct, we have another argument in favor of the fact that "head covering" is not "long hair", since a woman cannot instantly change long hair to short and back. The cover can be put on and taken off.

There is only one thing left for us - to consider what regulatory symbol today can replace a head covering.

Position "Head covering is a symbol"

This position accepts the same exegesis of the text as the previous position on the literal head covering, with one exception. Now I also adhere to this point of view. The reasoning is based on an understanding of the role of head covering in ancient world and in modern world. In the ancient world, head coverings were in vogue in separate parts Greco-Roman Empire. Somewhere it was considered the norm for men to cover their heads; somewhere, women. And somewhere it was not obligatory for either men or women. It is not so important to establish exactly where the norms were. It is much more important to note that the early church adopted an already existing social tradition and made it an expression of some Christian virtue. That Paul could say that there was no other practice in other churches may well indicate how easily this course of action could enter Christian society. There is an analogy here with the rite of baptism in Israel. The Pharisees did not ask John " What you are doing?" They asked: "Why you are you doing this?" They understood what baptism was (despite the fact that the baptism of John was apparently first performed by someone on the baptized, in contrast to the then known baptism of himself); but they did not understand where John had the authority to baptize and what his baptism symbolized. Likewise, the practice of the early church requiring women who pray or prophesy to wear a veil did not seem unusual. AT big cities Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece, no one would feel out of place. Head coverings were worn everywhere. When a woman put on a veil in church, she showed her subordination to her husband, but at the same time did not stand out in society. One could easily imagine a woman with a covered head walking down the street to a church service, without attracting any attention to herself.

Today the situation is different, at least in the West. It would be frankly humiliating for a woman to wear a veil on her head. Many women—even truly biblically submissive wives—disagree with this precisely because they feel embarrassed and draw attention to themselves. But the head covering in Paul's day was only meant to show the woman's subordination, not her humiliation. Surprisingly, in our time, forcing women to wear a veil during the service is like telling them to shave their heads! The result will be the opposite of what Paul wanted to achieve. Thus, if we are to fulfill the spirit of the apostolic teaching, and not just the letter, we need to find a suitable symbol to replace the veil.

We have two questions before us. Firstly, how justify the use of another symbol of power on a woman's head if the head covering is now a symbol of humiliation? Secondly, which exactly should we use a symbol?

On the first question: let's approach the justification of another symbol from several sides. (1) Another symbol allows us to comply spiritual meaning 1 Cor. 11 and does not contradict Paul's two arguments (justification in nature and in the traditions of society). If we are forced to choose between the spirit of Scripture and the letter, it is wiser to follow the spirit. (2) Viewed as a whole, Christian teaching does not suggest following symbols for the sake of symbols. The New Testament writers do not teach rituals and forms, but reality and content. (3) My suggestion is that the reason why the head covering was used by the early church is that this tradition already existed in society and, like the rite of baptism, could easily acquire additional meaning. The doctrine of the hierarchy of leadership (God-Christ-husband) is formulated by Paul through the word "head" in figurative meaning("leader"). Coated symbol "heads" in his direct meaning could be born precisely because of the lexical connection. But if the symbol ceases to express what it used to symbolize, the essence should not change (i.e., whatever symbol a woman wears, it should indicate her subordination to her husband and / or [if not married] to male leaders of the church). (4) The analogy with the rite of communion can help and be appropriate, since there are many symbols in the Eucharist and its celebration is also one of the traditions transmitted by Paul (1 Cor. 11:17 et seq.). The symbols of wine and unleavened bread are taken directly from the rite Jewish Passover. In the first century, the obligatory four cups of wine, a lamb, bitter herbs and unleavened bread participated in the celebration of Passover. Part of the meal that Jesus took for the rite of communion is the third bowl of Passover and unleavened bread. The absence of leaven was an important attribute, as it symbolized the sinlessness of Christ. And of course, there was real wine. Is it obligatory for us today to use unleavened bread and real wine? In some churches it is mandatory, in others it is not. However, some churches would be horrified if real wine were to be served in communion. Very few churches use unleavened bread (salt crackers actually contain yeast). Will we anathematize these churches for breaking tradition, a tradition that has both historical and biblical roots? If following such an important tradition as the breaking of bread can have variations, then shouldn't we give the much less important tradition about the special role (and style of dress) for women a little freedom in implementation?

On the second question: if we no longer care so much about the symbol itself, but about what it symbolizes, then what symbol should we use today? There is no one-size-fits-all answer to this, simply because if we are talking about a “symbol with meaning”, we must recognize that social traditions are changing. If we canonize one symbol - especially one that is mentioned in the Bible - we risk erecting oral tradition to the level of Scripture and make the gospel external and ritual. Each local church should work to find a suitable symbol for our time. However, if you (and your church) agree with what I'm proposing here, church leaders will have to get together, sketch ideas together, and get creative with the problem. I'd love to hear what you get!

However, we do have a few guides. The symbol must convey so much of the content and symbolism of 1 Cor. 11 as much as possible. Some have suggested that as an acceptable symbol, use wedding ring. This symbol has several significant advantages. It is accepted in a wide segment of our society. A woman won't feel embarrassed when she puts on her engagement ring. It clearly shows that she is married to her husband, and well conveys the idea of ​​1 Cor. 11:9 (co-addiction!). However, this symbol has several disadvantages. A ring will not work for several reasons: (1) a wedding ring means that the text of 1 Cor. 11 speaks only of married women; (2) this symbol is not only female; married men also wear rings; and (3) unlike the head covering, the ring is not a very prominent symbol.

What symbols are still available to us? For the time being - and I emphasize the temporary nature of the situation - I think wearing a modest dress would be a fitting symbol. Such a symbol does not fully correspond to the passage of Scripture, but it does justice to many of its parameters. In particular - and most importantly - a woman who dresses provocatively (too emphasizes femininity) or pushes the boundaries of decency in another direction (for example, wearing jeans or a business suit) often does not have internal submission and does not show it with her behavior. That is why such a symbol corresponds to the theological content very accurately.

I hope and pray that this work will not offend any of the readers. First of all, I always strive to be faithful to the Scriptures. Secondly, I strive to be sensitive to real people with their real needs. Some may argue that my approach is not biblical enough; others will say that I do not keep up with the times. If anyone disagrees with my position, great. But in order to convince me to change my view, it is necessary to refute the exegesis presented. I may be wrong in the interpretation, but I have to see it. No matter how I sympathize with the feminist movement (and I am impressed in it much), I cannot betray my conscience or my understanding of Scripture. I am open to other points of view on this text, but will not change my mind simply on the basis of the argument. ad hominem. Every believer must be convinced of his position on the basis of Scripture; no one should deviate from what the Bible teaches simply because their point of view is unpopular. The real danger, as I see it, is that Christians simply ignore what this text says because any form of obedience to it is inconvenient.

Translator's Note: Verse 16 in some translations of the Bible reads as follows: "And if anyone wants to argue, then we have no other such custom, and neither do the churches of God" NET: If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice , nor do the churches of God.

Note. Transl.: Probably Leon Morris.

Note. Transl.: The Mishnah is part of the Talmud. Pesachim chapter 8, Mishnah 6: “for the one who mourns and sorts out the collapse, and also for those who was promised to be released from prison, for the sick and the elderly, who are able to eat kazait, they cut Pesach. For all of them, they are not cut separately - suddenly Passover will be brought to a state of unsuitability. Therefore, if something happens to them that makes them unfit, they are exempted from the need to celebrate Sheini's Pesach - except for the one who clears the landslide, which is unclean from the very beginning.

Note. transl.: in the Russian Synodal translation of the Bible, the word "custom" is omitted in this place.

In addition to verses 2 and 16, there are several more theological arguments contained in the passage itself that indicate the need for strictness in the implementation of Paul's tradition of covering the head. See discussion below.

J. B. Hurley. "Man and Woman - A Biblical Perspective" (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1981), pp. 170-171. / J. B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) 170-71.

Com. transl.: Although in Numbers there is no adjective "ἀκατακάλυπτος", the noun "ἀποκάλυψις" [apokAlupsis] is used there - i.e. single root, but with other prefixes, which means "opening, exposure, disclosure, removal of the veil." In addition, in Num. 5:18 and Lev. 13:45 in Hebrew is the same verb (פרע).

The Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon LSJ also gives the meaning "uncovered"

Given the above arguments against "veiling" being "long hair", we believe that Scripture teaches a literal covering of the head. It is necessary to separate, however, the question of literal interpretation and how it is applied today.

If I may be allowed, I would like to add a personal observation. Much of the feminist view that dominates contemporary evangelical churches stems from a simplistic view of the Trinity (I suspect the church's reaction to the spread of cults in the nineteenth century, which weakened some of the theological beliefs, played a big role here). Evangelical churches stand firmly on the ontological equality of the Son with the Father. But to find doctrinal positions - in churches or in seminaries - in which the Son would be shown functionally subordinates Father, it's not easy. At the same time, in In. 14:28, Phil. 2:6-11, 1 Cor. 11:3, 15:28 we find clear teaching about eternal subordination of the Son (John 14 and 1 Cor. 11 speaks of subordination in present tense; Flp. 2 - in the eternal past; 1 Cor. 15 - in the eternal future). Since the same books affirm the unconditional ontological equality of the Son and the Father, subordination must be functional or role-based.

I assume that the requirement was limited to women who pray or prophesy, although some of those who hold this opinion also believe that there is no such restriction. See discussion above.

Keep in mind that a hat is not a head covering. The function of a hat is to emphasize the beauty of a woman, which is closer to the function of hair. The head covering, on the contrary, should hide the glory of a woman.

We have not touched on whether this text refers to married or unmarried women. This will have to be left for another occasion. It suffices to say that "γυνή" [gune] in Greek means "woman" (as opposed to "wife"), unless the context indicates otherwise.

I don't mean that women can't wear jeans! Rather, I'm saying that in some parts of America, for example, for a woman to wear jeans to a church service is tantamount to disrespecting church leaders. In the northwest, jeans are worn by local dandies - this is almost the most decent clothing even on Sundays (my brother has dressy jeans and casual jeans ...) Perhaps a different symbol is needed in that region. If it is difficult for men to come up with a good symbol that women will accept, women should be invited to participate in the choice. This issue requires a productive dialogue between men and women. Whatever symbol is found, it must not humiliate. Its function is merely to show proper submission.

The irony is that today long hair can mean the same thing as a modest dress. It is not uncommon for women to cut their hair short to be treated like men. So although the symbol in Paul's time was not the hair, perhaps some churches will decide that wearing hair in a certain way would be the appropriate symbol. This symbol still has several drawbacks. For example, the contrast between verses 10 and 15 will be erased. And having long hair—or even certain hairstyles with long hair—doesn't always convey a sense of subservience. Moreover, women who are forced to wear short hair on the set various reasons will be excluded from public service. Hair length may vary depending on climate or age. Since hair grows best when young, if long hair is the symbol, younger and less mature women will be more likely to participate in public service than older and more mature ones.

At the same time, someone may object that the association with the “head” is completely lost in this symbol. But in the text of Scripture, the head symbolizes power. It's unwise to insist on a certain character because it matches another symbol if as a result of the substitution the main meaning disappears. Such stubbornness is akin to hypocrisy.

4 (80%) 3 votes

For an answer to this question we will cite evidence from the Old Believer magazine "Church" of the early twentieth century, which quotes the instruction St. apostle paul:

“Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head, for it is the same as if she were shaved; for if a woman does not want to cover herself, then let her have her hair cut; but if a woman is ashamed to be shorn or shaved, let her cover herself” (1 Cor., XI, 5,6).

St. John Chrysostom says in explanation of these words of the apostle:

“The apostle commands the husband to be open not always, but only during prayer… He commands the wife to always be covered; because having said: “Every woman who prays or prophesies with a frank head shames her head,” he does not stop there, but still continues: “There is one and the same to be shorn.”

If it is always shameful to be shorn, then it is obvious that it is always shameful to be uncovered. (The apostle) does not stop at this, but also adds: “A wife must have power on her head for the sake of an angel” ; shows that not only during prayer, but always, it must be covered (His Creations, vol. X, p. 257).

During the service, people should focus on prayer, and our ancestors thought through everything to the smallest detail

As for whether a woman should braid her hair in two braids or in one, we have not seen anything written about that. We only know that due to the ancient custom among Orthodox Christians, women braid their hair in two braids, and girls in one.

"Church", 1913, No. 39

It should also be added that among the Old Believers, a pious tradition was established not to tie a scarf with a double knot, but to pin it with a pin. married women, in addition to a scarf, a warrior is put on in the temple - a light hat, worn for the first time during a wedding.

In some places, mainly in southern regions, practice tying a scarf on one “loop” knot.

Rehearsal of the performance of the children's choir on Rogozhsky

Double, etc. knots are associated with the Judas noose and are considered an impious symbol, as are ties for men.

Feast on the Sunday of St. Myrrh-bearing women on Rogozhsky in Moscow

For some services (for example, the Exaltation of the Cross, the Beheading of St. John the Baptist), as well as before confession and in the morning after it, up to St. Communions (for adults),

Performance of the Old Believer Choir on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross
Prayer service on the occasion of the feast of the beheading of St. Prophet and Forerunner John

Selected articles from the site:

Illustrated information about the Rogozhskaya Sloboda and all the establishments that are located on its territory.

A selection of exclusive photographs of the progress of reconstruction on Rogozhskoe in 2007-2015.

A selection of materials on the topic of the relationship between religious and secular perception of the world, including the headings "", "", materials "", information, as well as readers of the site "Old Believer Thought".

Visit the Customs section of our website. You will find in it a lot of interesting things from the undeservedly forgotten. . .

A brief selection of objective literature on ancient Orthodoxy and the history of the Russian Church.

Which cross is considered canonical, why is it unacceptable to wear a pectoral cross with the image of a crucifix and other images?