Why should a Christian woman have her head covered in church? About head covering.

11.09.2014

Since ancient times, a woman has been going to church with her head covered - this is an ancient custom that originated from the words of the Apostle Paul. The apostle said that a wife should have a symbol on her head that signifies authority over her. This is necessary, first of all, for Angels.

This is where the tradition of covering one's head when entering a church arose. According to the apostle, if a woman prays with her head uncovered, it is shameful. An uncovered head is equivalent to a shaved head. With these words, the apostle emphasized the shamefulness of the clothing of modern women who show their bodies. A man has the right to go to church with his head open.

By the way, in ancient culture the head was covered as a sign of modesty. Hair at that time was considered the most striking attribute of female attractiveness and beauty. Family women were not able to walk around with their hair down, and were required to wear a headdress such as a scarf. The headscarf was an indicator that the woman was busy and belonged to her husband. Covering the head with a scarf is closely related to another point. In ancient times, soothsayers and priestesses, falling into frenzy, let down their hair.

In this way they showed their mystical ecstasy, symbolizing absolute detachment from public opinion. However, the Apostle does not bind this fact with the requirement to attend church in a headscarf. He determines this necessity by the fact that communication with God must be orderly and pure. Women's clothing must be in certain agreement with Christian teaching.

The doctrine interprets that a woman should not emphasize her figure and decorate her clothes. If all other clothes look indecent, then a scarf on the head has no meaning. On the contrary, the scarf in this case emphasizes the woman’s shamelessness even more and causes temptation among other people. The Apostle Paul confirms his view of women as subordinate to the demands of their husbands and to God.

Nowadays, clothes convey something completely different. semantic meaning. Women dress in fashion that is not based on Christian teachings. Women look up to each other, showing off the new items they have acquired. According to Christian teaching, you should not be ashamed of modest attire and pay attention to appearance others, worrying that people will misunderstand and have a bad opinion.

The apostle said that the clothing of a believer should not be provocative, but look modest, discreet and not the subject of attracting general attention. If you maintain all the customs proposed by the church, then it will be much easier for a person to tune in to prayer and remain alone with himself and God.

If a person attends church, it means he believes and therefore he must adhere to certain requirements, non-compliance with which is considered shameful. Therefore, based on the above, believers consider it inappropriate to go to church without wearing a headscarf.

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, regarding the issues of the notorious unity of the church, as well as the difficulties in mutual understanding between people within local church I, too, have already had time 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 issue 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 as addressed to them (hence the term “Goofing off”, 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. Whatever. 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. Learning never hurts personal experience and cordiality. And vice versa.

Well, now, it seems, that’s all. Thank you for reading to the end.

Sincerely yours,
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 institution is accepted as a tradition that is not discussed. Some so-called “progressive Christians” (especially among young people) quietly laugh 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 open disgraces her own head” (1 Cor. 11.4-5), one must assume that Paul seems to mean that this really applies to men, “but 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. There really are no gender or national characteristics in Christ, 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 encourage wives to cover their heads spiritual person, which is in Christ, and 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 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 in everything there is certain order, 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 the subordination of 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 relations of subordination of ordinary believers to “spiritual fathers” suppressed equal brotherly relations 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 derives 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 initially God created not an abstract man, but a man, although some modern editions Bibles try to interpret the creation of man as the creation of a “human being” without specifying 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 subjected all plant and fauna(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 a 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 evidence not only for 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 there is no time in celestial hierarchy A catastrophe occurred: 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, the 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 shames 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 long established, experimental and scientific confirmed 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 be hidden 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 (whether by the authority of the church, or by tradition or education) does not reflect true submission and has 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 spiritual world“- 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 to wives with their heads covered, and to husbands with their heads uncovered.
Indeed, everything 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 stated most clearly 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 more low creature compared to a man. As Al would reason. Pavel, if he lived in our time of emancipation and sexual revolution somewhere in West Germany, in Texas, in Ukraine or in 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 their heads open (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.

Konstantin says:
July 12th, 2016 at 08:10 pm

Good afternoon Dear all. 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.

Olga says:
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, whether it is necessary to cover your head during the morning and evening prayers at home, including before meals? 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!!!

VS RYaguzov says:
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.

Should you cover your head in church or not? Why is there a difference for men and women?

Apparently here we're talking about about the First Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians. In chapter 11, Paul spoke about the need for women to cover their heads when praying:

“Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head.”(1 Cor. 11.5).

The answer to a similar question has already been given earlier in the material. However, now we will approach this topic from a slightly different direction.

Today in many Christian churches they literally understand the words of the apostle and strictly follow his instructions. In a number of faiths, women do not wear headscarves, which raises questions among some believers: what is the right thing to do?

Let's look at the words of the Apostle Paul together.

First of all, let us remember that Bible verses often cannot be understood as separate independent phrases, that is, taken out of the context of the narrative. All messages are complete sermons of the apostles and prophets and consist of complete passages - parts of the sermon. Moreover, these passages (parts of the sermon) rarely correspond to the division into chapters, which was adopted centuries after the books of the Bible were written. Also, when interpreting Scripture, historical and geographical specifics must be taken into account.

In chapter 11 of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, from verse 2, Paul begins admonishing the Christians of Corinth about the inside church rules life and behavior. This topic will last until chapter 14 inclusive.

Paul began by explaining the “primacy”: the head of the wife is the husband, the head of the husband is Christ, and the head of Christ is God. Here we are not talking about leadership as such, but about who comes from whom, and who plays what role. Jesus the Son is from God the Father, a wife from the bones of her husband. In Hebrew, husband sounds ish, and wife ishsha, that is, having a common part with her husband. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a woman is a “second-class” person. On the contrary, Holy Scripture immediately says that both woman and man are called by God the same way - man:

“And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; He created THEM man and woman” (Gen. 1:27)

But the roles of people, as well as the faces of the Divine, are different. Christ the Son descended to Earth, that is, he fulfilled the role assigned to Him... Among people, a woman has always been the keeper of the hearth, caring for the household and raising children. The husband was responsible for feeding the family and had a priestly function, since he had more relations with the outside world. However, this neither before nor now does not diminish or lower the status of a woman before God and her husband. According to the Bible, women enjoyed great freedom and respect. She acted not only as a wife, mother and housekeeper, but also as a judge (Deborah), a prophetess (Mariam), a wise counselor (2 Sam. 14:2; 20:16) and even the embodiment of heroism (Esther).

However, there must be order in everything. That is why God leaves a certain primacy to the husband. But this applies, I repeat, to the roles that I envisaged for a full-fledged happy marriage Lord. Today there are families where men lie on the sofa, and women take on the role of breadwinner... Also now there is a feminist movement in the world that advocates for the equality of women. If you are careful and look at the lives of such ladies, you will see that they often do not have happy life... Instead of being looked after by a beloved man, to bask in his arms, to hide behind his broad back... These ladies themselves perform the role of men, but at the same time they lose the joy of being a weak woman, that is, the advantages of the fairer sex. Although, probably, many feminists have more than once wanted to find a “real” man in order to become a “real” woman...

So, having understood the roles a little, we can return to the topic of covering the head. Pavel noted that “every husband, praying or prophesying with covered head, shames his head"(1 Cor. 11:4), and he had the opposite requirement for a woman... It is obvious that cause such instruction also lies in the roles.

If you carefully read the entire part of the sermon devoted to head covering and primacy, it is not difficult to notice that Paul never once referred to the Old Testament Scripture and did not even hint that this decree was from God and related to His law - the commandments. Instead, Paul seeks argumentation in nature (vv. 13-15), which is not typical for a theologian of this level... And he concludes by saying that he simply will not argue on this topic. It seems that this was due to the fact that he simply did not have theological arguments, but he felt that he was thinking correctly.

Indeed, in the entire vast Holy Scripture with its numerous commandments (the Jews count 613 commandments in God’s law), there is not a single word about prayer with a covered and, accordingly, with an open head, especially in relation to believers of different sexes. At the very least, it is strange that there is no commandment to cover the head, because if it were important, then the Lord would certainly have left such instructions for people. But in Scripture we find a description of the traditions that took place among those peoples.

“The Lord will strip the crowns of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will lay bare their shame.”(Isa. 3:17)

God, warning about punishment, uses here the traditions of the people to whom he is addressing in order to convey His thought to them in a language understandable to people.

A distinctive feature of life in the East is the modest clothing of women, covering almost the entire body. And a special role is assigned to the headdress. It was so before, and it remains so to this day. We are not talking about the hijab, but about covering the head. Decent women of the East could not leave the house with their heads uncovered, that is, with their hair down. And vice versa, hetaeras and public women at pagan temples, including Corinth, walked with their hair down. I would like to note that this was not only the case in Eastern countries. And in Russia, it was not decent for women to take off their headdress or let their hair down outside the home; they had to at least be tied up in a bun with a scarf or ribbon woven into it. Hence the expression “to make a fool of yourself” - to disgrace yourself, to disgrace yourself, being left in front of the people with your head uncovered.

Now, I think it is clear why Paul insisted on women wearing head coverings in the prayer meeting where they pray and prophesy (preach). Church meetings were public place, not a house. And therefore, when some ladies, dreaming of the preached freedom in Christ “there is no longer... male or female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28), began to neglect the moral norms accepted in society, and Despite the opinions of others, they began to take off their hats, but they met with opposition from Pavel! What was the apostle defending here when he forbade such behavior for women?

It's very simple. Paul preached to people of different nationalities and different religions, and in spreading the Gospel he tried to be closer to people, without violating their foundations, as much as this did not contradict the law of God. A little earlier than the passage we are studying, he wrote to the Corinthians:

“To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win the Jews; to those under the law he was as one under the law, in order to gain those under the law; for those who are alien to the law - as someone who is alien to the law - not being a stranger to the law before God... This is what I do for the Gospel” (1 Cor. 9:20-23)

That is, Paul took into account the mentality of the people to whom he wanted to tell about God. Imagine the situation that today young girl, wearing a light jacket and short shorts, letting his hair down to his waist, will come to one of the countries of the East and will walk the streets, talking about Jesus Christ.

Such a picture can be seen on the streets of European cities... But in the East, trouble awaits this girl. And of course, her preaching about Christ will not be heard. Moreover, these people will harbor hostility toward Jesus for allowing young women to dress in such inappropriate ways. Such examples can be continued for a long time, recalling the peculiarities of life of the peoples of Africa, Asia, etc. Each locality has its own traditions and its own concepts of what is beautiful, decent, and what, on the contrary, is immoral. And of course, it is difficult for a person to quickly change his mentality - the views with which he grew up and lived for decades... Therefore, Paul called for taking into account the culture of the people when bringing the Gospel to them, but within the framework of the law of God “not being a stranger to the law before God”.

By forbidding the women of Corinth to remove their head coverings in the congregation, Paul shows that Christians do not need to reject the boundaries of social decency, even if they are not based on literally God's. That is, Christians are not free from moral standards and must be an example and example in the environment where they live, so that as much as possible more people lead to God and save. If Christians are perceived in society as “uncultured” people, rebels who violate generally accepted values, then neither the church nor God will benefit from this, nor will these people themselves. It is not difficult to understand that a person will then be listened to when, from the point of view of society, he sets a high example.

Now, as for covering the heads of men... When discussing these texts, one thing is clear - we do not have complete information about this situation. But, apparently, the readers - Christians of Corinth - understood the apostle well. Apparently, at that time, there was some kind of secular or religious dispute about this. Perhaps Paul was against the introduction by the Jews of the tradition, beyond those established by the Holy Scriptures, of praying, covering the head with a tallit or kippah. The problem with Judaism is that believers supplemented the written law of God with an oral law, which they placed on a par with the revelations of God Himself. Therefore, Paul, as Jesus and the prophets taught, was against traditions added to the Scriptures. And when the Christians began to adopt such a religious cult from the Jews, probably considering the covering of the head to be God's law, Paul opposed it.

So, we can conclude: when speaking about the primacy and the difference between the attire of a man and a woman, the apostle meant order in the community and in the family of believers. Paul wanted Christians to be models for the surrounding pagans, particularly by promoting the biblical ideal of relationships in community and family. The apostle also explained that customs, traditions and cultural characteristics, which do not contradict the commandments of God, should not be rejected by believers, without, naturally, overshadowing the law of the Lord.

Konstantin Chumakov, Valery Tatarkin

This tradition dates back to deep Christian antiquity, namely to apostolic times. At that time, every married, respectable woman covered her head when leaving the house. Head veil, which, for example, we see on icons Mother of God, indicated the woman’s marital status. This head covering meant that she was not free, that she belonged to her husband. To “bar” a woman’s crown or loosen her hair meant to humiliate or punish her (see: Isa. 3:17; cf. Num. 5:18).

Harlots and vicious women demonstrated their special occupation by not covering their heads.

The husband had the right to divorce his wife without returning her dowry if she appeared on the street bare-haired, this was considered an insult to her husband.

Girls and young women did not cover their heads because the veil was a sign of the special status of a married woman (which is why, according to tradition, an unmarried virgin can enter the temple without a head veil)

So, at home, a married woman took off her veil and always put it on when leaving the house.

Men did not have to cover their heads when leaving the house. In any case, if they covered it outside, it was because of the heat, and not because it was supposed to be so. During worship, the Jews also did not cover their heads, with the exception of special occasions. For example, they covered their heads during fasting or mourning. Those excommunicated from the synagogue and lepers were also required to cover their heads.

Now imagine the situation: the Apostles herald the coming of new times. The old has passed, the world has approached the line beyond which everything new will begin! People who have accepted Christ experience a truly revolutionary mood. It is no wonder in such a state to reject the old, the former and strive for the new. This is what happened among the Christians of Corinth. Many of them are beginning to teach that traditional forms of behavior and decorum must be abolished. About this Ap. Paul expresses his opinion and says that such disputes are extremely harmful, because they discredit Christians in the eyes of others. Christians appear to people outside the Church as brawlers, violators of generally accepted decency and norms of behavior.

In order to confirm his words, the Apostle Paul, as he loves and does quite often, unfolds a whole theological proof that there is no need to violate accepted standards of behavior.

Here is a passage in which Paul speaks on this topic:

1. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
2. I praise you, brothers, because you remember everything I have and keep the traditions as I handed them down to you.
3. 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.
4. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head.
5. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaved.
6. 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.
7. So 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.
8. For man is not from woman, but woman is from man;
9. And man was not created for wife, but woman for man.
10. Therefore, a wife should have on her head a sign of power over her, for the Angels.
11. Yet neither is man without wife, nor wife without 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 yourself whether it is proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
14. Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a husband grows his hair, then it is a dishonor for him,
15. But if a wife grows her hair, it is an honor for her, since the hair was given to her instead of a veil?
16. And if anyone wanted to argue, then we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God.
17. But in offering this, I do not praise you because you are planning not for the best, but for the worst.
18. For, firstly, I hear that when you gather for church, there are divisions among you, which I partly believe.
19. For there must also be differences of opinion among you, so that the wise may be revealed among you.

1 Corinthians 11, 1-19

In Rus', the pious custom of a woman praying in a temple with her head covered was preserved. By this, the woman pays respect and respect to the early Christian church tradition, to the opinion of the Apostle Paul. However, let's not forget that we are not talking about a female representative in general, but about a married woman. For her, a scarf can be a “status” thing, a sign of her marriage. Or, say, a sign of widowhood or simply venerable age. Young girls should not be required to cover their heads.

Father Konstantin Parkhomenko

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 masculinity. 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. Mostly modern women Christianity wears 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 unmarried girl This rule does not have to be followed. 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 foundations can be traced in each of the religions discussed - the head is always a man.