ArchivedLong hair on men.Hello confused one, I will attempt to clear up your confusion.
It is written:1 Corinthians 11:3-4 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.
What does this mean?
The head here refers to Christ which is the Head of the Body of Christ{Christians}
This has been a question od debate for some time.
While it is not expressly commanded for men (except the cohen hagadol [high priest] in the performance of his priestly duties) to wear a head-covering, it is not expressly forbidden by Scripture either, unless one wishes to interpret Sha'ul's (Paul's) writing in 1 Corinthians 11 as such.
The purpose of this study is to show that Sha'ul was writing not against men wearing anything upon their heads while praying or prophesying, but against some Corinthians who were bringing into the Body of Messiah some of the pagan practices of their former religion, such as males covering their heads with a veil.
When he writes in 1 Corinthians 11:4:
"Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head" he knew full well that the high priest would be required to wear a head-covering while performing his duties.
In the TANAKH (Hebrew Scriptures), the high priest was commanded by G-d in Shemot (Exodus 28:4 & 40-41) to wear a turban (miter) in performing their priestly duties (Vayikra (Leviticus) 10:6.
Sha'ul (Paul) would have known this and respected this, as the priests were still performing their duties until the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash (Temple) until C.E. 70.
If Sha'ul were writing against men wearing a head-covering of any kind here in 1 Corinthians 11, then he is saying that when performing their priestly duties, the high priests were, by G-d's command, dishonoring their heads; since the high priest not only prays and intercedes on behalf of the people but also prophecies in the course of his duties.
Considering that the Berean Jews (Acts 17:10-11) studied the Scriptures to see if what Sha'ul (Paul) said checked out, a precedent that newer revelation must be checked out by preceding revelation is established. Sha'ul's newer revelations must not conflict with existing revelation.
Yeshua (Jesus) Himself stated: "Don't think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete. Yes indeed! I tell you that until heaven and earth pass away, not so much as a yud or stroke will pass from the Torah - not until everything that must happen has happened. So whoever disobeys the least of these mitzvot and teaches others to do so will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever obeys them and so teaches others will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven."
Matthew 5:17-19
If Sha'ul were saying that men covering their heads during prayer or prophesy were dishonoring their heads, he was saying that the high priests, too were dishonoring their heads as well - conflicting with already established Scripture and violating that which Yeshua would not do. I submit that Sha'ul was not doing this either, but rather, he was speaking against men wearing a certain kind of covering.
The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, by Nestle/Marshall, translates this passage: Every man praying or prophesying down over (Gk. "kata") [his] head (Gk. "kephales") having [anything] shames the head of him.(1)
In proper English: "Every man praying or prophesying having anything down over his head shames his head."
In Dr. David H. Stern's Jewish New Testament Commentary, copyright 1996 by Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., Clarksville, MD, Dr. Stern writes: Every man who prays in public worship meetings or prophecies wearing something down over his head. This is the literal translation, and it is used here to show that Sha'ul is talking about wearing a veil, not a hat. The usual translation, "with head covered," obscures this fact, and as a result an issue has arisen in Messianic Judaism that should never have come up at all, namely, whether it is proper for a Messianic Jewish man to wear a kippah ("skullcap" or, in Yiddish, yarmulke) in public worship. Of course it is proper, since objection to it is based only on a mis-translation of this verse. For more, see my Messianic Jewish Manifesto, pp 170-171).
Generally speaking, Orthodox Jews wear kippot at all times, Conservative Jews in religious contexts only, and Reform Jews rarely if at all. The custom of wearing a kippah has no Scriptural basis and is not required even in the Talmud; it did not acquire a mandatory status (from an Orthodox Jewish viewpoint) until the writing of the Shulkan Arukh in the 16th century, though it had become customary some centuries earlier. In the synagogue a Jew saying his prayers will sometimes pull his tallit (prayer shawl) up over his head; he does it in order to create privacy and intimacy between himself and God and this distinguishes his situation from the public praying or prophesying Sha'ul is writing about.(2)
Following through with his suggestion to obtain more information from the Messianic Jewish Manifesto, pages 170-171 we find:
c. Kippah. A Jewish man is not compelled by halakhah to wear a kippah; there is no mention of it anywhere in the Talmud. But it is certainly an identification tag, since it has become such a universal custom among religious Jews that it nearly carries the weight of a halakhik requirement. It is interesting that what the kippah identifies in the Diasopra is different from what it identifies in Israel. In the Diaspora it says "Jew;" but in Israel it says "dati" (religious), and its style (knitted, black, embroidered, etc.) tells what kind of Orthodox Jew is wearing it.
Because of 1 Corinthians 11, an issue has arisen as to whether a Messianic Jewish man may wear a kippah when he prays. My answer, as it appeared in my "Response" to Arnold Fruchtenbaum's "A Quest for a Messianic Theology" in Mishkan is:
It is not unscriptural for Messianic Jewish men to wear yarmulkes when worshipping, as is evident from the meaning of the Greek words used in 1 Corinthians 11:4-5a, 7a. A literal translation of this passage is: "Every man praying or prophesying having [something] down over his head shames his head, but every woman praying or prophesying with head unveiled shames her head...For a man indeed ought not [to have] the head to me veiled." Paul is writing about veils, which come down over one's head. A kippah is not a veil, and it does not come down over one's head. Therefore there is no conflict between 1 Corinthians 11 and a man's wearing a skullcap.(3)
If it is true, as Dr. Stern suggests that Sha'ul was writing against the Corinthian men wearing veils over their head as dishonoring, do we have any other evidence to establish this as what was being written against?
In The Torah A Modern Commentary edited by W. Gunther Plaut, it is brought out that many cultures in the Mediterranean had religious practices in which men dressed as women:
The Torah forbids the wearing of apparel customary for the opposite sex... On the island of Cos, says Plutarch, priests of Hercules dressed as women; while, in Rome, men who participated in the vernal mysteries of that god did likewise. So too in the cult of Dionysis, males often adopted feminine costume, just as at the annual festival of Oscophoria boys were attired as girls and, at the Skirophoria, men were garbed like women. The same practice is attested also in connection with the cult of Leukippos in Crete...
The origin of the custom is disputed...it has also been suggested that, in cases where men wear women's clothes in the performance of magical rites, this reflects the widespread belief that magic (especially when it aims at promoting fertility) is primarily the province of the female sex, and that - at least in some instances - the usage may go back to a time when priesthood was in the hands of women.(4)
The preceding explanation enlightens the dynamic at play in the 1 Corinthians 11 passage: 1) Torah prohibition against males (Deuteronomy 22:5) wearing female clothing and vise versa. Must be a distinction in the sexes. 2) In many Mediterranean cultures, male Temple prostitutes wore women's clothing in their religious practices. Considering that in the Church today, many pagan practices have been incorporated over the centuries by pagan converts coming into the Body of Messiah, it should not surprise us that converts to the faith even in Sha'ul's time were bringing their practices with them. Sha'ul is quickly nipping this practice in the bud.
He had to have been speaking against men wearing veils, since that is the context of the passage (1 Corinthians 11: 5, 6, 7, and 10). He would have known that the cohen hagadol (high priest) wore a head covering in the performance of his duties. He would have known that the Levites would cover their heads when pronouncing the Aaronic Benediction over the people of Israel. 3) In many pagan cultures, women hold the priesthood. Hence, the emphasis on the male headship (1 Cor. 11:78) in not only this passage, but other writings of the Apostle Shaul (Ephesians 5:22; Colossians 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:11-14, etc.) Halley's Bible Handbook brings out that:
It was customary in Greek and Eastern cities for women to cover their heads in public, except women of immoral character. Corinth was full of temple prostitutes. Some of the Christian women, taking advantage of their new-found liberty in Christ, were making bold to lay aside their veils in Church meetings, which horrified those of more modest type. They are here told not to defy public opinion as to what was considered proper in feminine decorum. Men and women are of equal value in God's sight. But there are certain natural distinctions between women and men without which human society could not exist. Christian women, living in heathen society, should be cautious in their innovations, lest they bring reproach on their religion. It is bad generally when women become too much like men.(5)
Halley, too, looks at this passage from the perspective of sexual distinction and order and keeping a pagan temple practice out of the Church. Since it must be remembered that male temple prostitutes wore veils in the performance of their religion, Sha'ul would be as strongly opposed to men wearing a veil (not only during services, but otherwise) as he was to women not wearing a veil.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the context of the 1 Corinthian 11 passage relative to headcovering and sexual distinctives does not speak against the male wearing a kippah or yarmulke(since it does not come down over the head) when praying or prophesying. It does speak to the fact that women should veil their heads when praying or prophesying and to the headship of the man who is under the headship of G-d.
Finally, in the future Temple as described in Ezekiel 40-44, the cohanim will be required to wear a headcovering (turban) during the officiation of their duties (Ezekiel 44:18). If we interpret that a man covering his head with anything while praying or prophesying dishonors his head, then these men shall be doing so in the future Millennial Kingdom of Messiah by Biblical command. Therefore, to be honest with the 1 Corinthian 11 passage in relation to other Scripture, we cannot find that a man is prohibited from wearing a headcovering such as a kippah while praying or prophesying in the assembly of G-d and aside from the cohanim ministering in their duties, neither can we find that a man is compelled to wear a headcovering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, The Nestle Greek Text with a Literal English Translation by Alfred Marshall, D. Litt., copyright 1975 by Zondervan Publishing House, page 685.
2. Jewish New Testament Commentary, Dr. David H. Stern, copyright 1996 by Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., Clarksville, MD., pg. 474
3. Messianic Jewish Manifesto, Dr. David H. Stern, copyright 1988 by Jewish New Testament Publications, Jerusalem, Israel, pages 170-171
4. The Torah A Modern Commentary, Edited by W. Gunther Plaut, copyright, 1981 by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, New York, page 1490
5. Halley's Bible Handbook, by Henry H. Halley, copyright 1965 by Halley's Bible Handbook, Inc., page 59
God Bless!
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |