Headcoverings

I had no desire to write about this topic this week, frankly.  I’ve been working my HINEY off updating, categorizing, and alphabetizing the sidebar (spent three hours on it yesterday… Y’like?)… and I realized I’m missing the second pre-wrath post and need to do the third one (I’ve got two drafts of it that I’ve found yesteray)… yeah.  Headcoverings *wasn’t* on the agenda.

But THREE people asked me to write about headcoverings this week.  THREE.  Just… out of the blue.  You know how I am about threes.  It’s a message from God if there’s three… and one that cannot be ignored.  And BTW, these people aren’t related, aren’t friends, and I don’t think they even subscribe to each other.  So it’s divine, not ‘planned’, as far as I’m concerned.  And you don’t ignore the divine.  ((aka ‘Anna’s-in-tune-to-signs.))  Sooooo… we’re going to tackle headcoverings today.  And it might get a bit lengthy, but I want to peg it once and for all.  So here are the verses in question:

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.  Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.   1 Corinthians 3-12  ((KJV – Because I’m that way.))

Now before we go any further, I want you to know where I’m coming from as a writer/Christ-follower.  I’m *not* a christchun.  Call me that and steam will come from my ears.  I’m a Messianic Jew, a Christ-follower… NOT a christchun.  And as someone who worships Adonai God from a more Jewish perspective… well, you must have in your minds the prayer shawls, the yarmulkahs (aka beanies, to christchuns) and other items of Judaism that you might not know the names of, but can picture if conjuring an image of Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof.  ((In which I was Tzietel, for the record.))  So headcoverings is a *bit* more relevant to me than, say, the  christchun who shows up because it makes them a more complete person to attend church.  Just wanted you to know where I’m coming from.  I celebrate the feasts, have Shabbat every Saturday, and study Torah.  7-11 choruses and The Message paraphrase make me ill.  I’m also HUGELY against taking scripture out of context.  Which is what has been done with this passage.  Let’s start with the underlined portion of the passage:

THE HEAD OF CHRIST IS GOD.  (God = Head of Christ)
THE HEAD OF EVERY MAN IS CHRIST.  (Christ = Head of man)
THE HEAD OF THE WOMAN IS THE MAN.  (Man = Head of woman)

Looks pretty cut n’ dried, don’t it… this little heirarchial formula.  It’s almost like little equations.  But do people APPLY those equations to the passage?  Hell, no, they say, “Oh, this is about wearing something like a hat on our heads!!”  (((!?!?!?!))  That’s akin to saying “We’re to fight the good fight, so put up your dukes, mom!”  What. THE. Heck?!?!  I cannot think like that.

Anyhow, the next thing was to look up “Cover”… katakaluptō – to veil or hide; to be under.  Now that we have the formula and definition, shall we apply the formula to the passage?  Let’s try and see what happens  ((I’ll bold and underline the formula substitutions for ease of understanding)):


But I would have you know, that the head of every man = Christ; and the head of the woman = the man; and the head of Christ = God.  ((aNNa’S NoTe:  Our formula.))

Every man praying or prophesying, having Christ hidden, dishonoureth Christ.  ((aNNa’S NoTe: If you’re praying and prophesying without making Christ the focus of it, without giving Him the glory, you’re dishonoring your Lord.  The whole POINT to prayer and prophecy is to glorify and submit to Christ.  There should be NO confusion as to who it’s directed towards.))

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with The Man not hidden dishonoureth The Man: ((aNNa’S NoTe:  The prayers and prophesyings of the wife are NOT to her husband, but to Christ.  If she doesn’t cover the submission to/leadership of her husband and direct this worship to Christ, she’s dishonoring her husband.))

for that is even all one as if she were shaven  ((aNNa’S NoTe:  In those days, a woman with a shaved head was a pagan woman marked as a prostitute or fallen from grace with her husband… not under the leadership of a husband.  If a woman doesn’t direct her prayer (covering her husband) to Christ, she is like a pagan woman, a prostitute… certainly not the wife of a godly man or a Bride of Christ!))

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: ((aNNa’S NoTe:  Likewise, in the formula, if a wife isn’t covered by (under the leadership of) her husband, let her be seen for what she is – out of God’s will, a pagan, a whore.  Ouch.  But this a heirarchy, and the woman is under the authority of God, Christ, and her husband.))

but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. ((aNNa’S NoTe:  Shame will certainly bring a person around to where they’re supposed to be.  Unfortunately in our day and age, it’s not luvvving to ‘shame’ a person by casting them out of a congregation or making them ‘look bad’ in any way.  Which is why the church is in the shape it’s in.))

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: ((aNNa’S NoTe:  Now what about this?  Isn’t that in contradiction to what Jewish men do?  Well, first, this isn’t about actual BEANIES, it’s about heirarchy, remember?  The man is in direct submission to God, there’s nobody between the two, or ‘covering’ the man.  Secondly, the ‘beanies’ aren’t scriptural.  It’s one of those legalism thangs… ADDED to scripture by Jewish tradition.))

but the woman is the glory of the man.  For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.  ((aNNa’S NoTe:  In the grand scheme of things, woman is secondary to man, taken from the man’s side… the ‘helpmeet’.  They weren’t included in the census, they weren’t counted in the ‘firstborn’ thangs of the OT, and they just… are highly underestimated, and God’s secret weapon.  There.  I said it.  LoL!!  Okay, AND we’re the glory of the man.  And in a roundabout way, the glory of God, as such.  pbbbbbt!))

Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.  ((aNNa’S NoTe:  I don’t want to talk about this one.  This is ABUSED by men (speaking specifically of my husband), and for that reason I refuse to discuss it.  He takes it out of context, and that’s ALL I have to say on the subject.))

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. ((aNNa’S NoTe:  If this is a consolation prize, that we shall judge the angels (1 Cor 6:3), it didn’t work.  Especially on the heels of that LAST one, thankyouverylittle, Paul…))

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.  ((aNNa’S NoTe:  Ah, here we get down to the truth of the matter.  The two are one, and while there’s a heirarchy, the woman is NOT less or expendible.  Not in the eyes of the Lord, anyhow.  (Someone should drive that into the head of my mate…).  THIS is the *real* skinny on the matter.))

For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.  ((aNNa’S NoTe:  Our heirarchy list again, reiterated as a final concluding statement, only in reverse order because Paul/God were that durn eloquent.))


Now, for a few verses people use to try to justify a woman’s head needing to be covered.  ((aka Anna blows BS out of the water.))

1 Timothy 2:9, “in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing,”   The people who use this verse tend to leave out the next part… (vs 10) but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.”  It’s not about what you wear, but your attitude and actions… ‘moderation’, ‘propriety’, ‘modesty’, ‘godliness’ and ‘good deeds’ do NOT equate to head covering.  Sorry.

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,  as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. Your adornment must not be merely external braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses;  but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.   Another not-so-headcovering verse, tried to be used to mandate dress and wear.  Since when did ‘chasteness’, ‘respectful behavior’, ‘gentle, and quiet spirit’, and ‘obedience’ equate to a doily pinned on your noggin’?  And worse, wouldn’t that directly contradict Jesus’ own words in John 7:24, where He says, Judge NOT AS TO THE APPEARANCE (what you wear on your head and body and face), but JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT?

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering (I Corinthians 11:14-15).   Some might say I haven’t finished including the passage, and that the ‘rest’ explains, because hair is a literal covering.  Sorry, but it’s STILL about the roles of men and women under God.  If hair was the covering, you just shot yourself in the foot, because only a fraction of the men out there are uncovered (bald), and LARGE number of women (even in churches, and ESPECIALLY pastor’s wives, I’ve found) do NOT have long hair.  Worse, for those advocating ‘veils’ or doilies, if your hair is your covering, then why would you need a veil?  That’s ALSO contradictory!  Either way, it just doesn’t work.

Now I’m aware that when Alyx did a thing on this years ago ((back when I ORIGINALLY meant to write about it, but didn’t want to piss her off  [too late, I care, nevermind]…)) that many of your read her thing on how covering your head is SYMBOLIC of the leadership yadda-yadda… I’m sorry.  If it ain’t in scripture, it’s adding to scripture, and where does it stop after you start that?  I can’t do it… I’d end up like the Jews who added 250+ laws to the Word, and that’s W.R.O.N.G.  And I’d rather just take God’s Word for what it is, and do the “Do’s” in it.  Trust me, that’ll keep me busy enough to last my WHOLE lifetime!!

I dunno.  I just think making it a legalistic matter is just ridiculous.  It’s SO OBVOIOUSLY NOT what the passage is about.  The Truth is that this is regarding leadership and authority, not observances thru apparel/head coverings.  And maybe I could’ve included a few more verses, but what I quoted started and ended with the core underlying meaning of the passage… and that’s what’s important.

Advertisements
Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s