| What did early Christians believe about the Head Covering? POCKETSERMONS.org Several references have already been made about the beliefs and writings of early Christian writers on 1 Corinthians 11:14 & 15. It’s now time to examine their beliefs more closely. First, may I say that we would all surely agree that early Christian writers were not inspired. Nor can we say that just because their writings survived suggests absolutely that they represented the majority views of their day. And–even if their views were representative of their day–it doesn’t mean their views were in harmony with the Bible, since the minority might have believed the actual truth. In other words, surely we all recognize that the writings of our early Christian ancestors should never be taken over the Bible’s teachings. That said, one must still admit that no honest person could casually ignore the views of early Christians. After all, with regard to controversial subjects such as the Hair Question, the words of an ancient brother who lived not long after the apostolic age and had likely conferred with those contemporary to Jesus Christ Himself–not to mention likely had a deeper understanding of the colloquial Greek language of the Bible–are a powerful force perhaps surpassed only by the words of inspiration themselves. Surely any honest truth seeker would admit such information could provide valuable insight to the interpretations of early Christians as to the meaning of such texts as 1 Corinthians 11, and would be worth examining or difficult issues such as the Head Covering (in the same manner we would perhaps consult a Bible Commentary to help our understanding). Understanding the Headcoverings of Paul’s day Before noticing the beliefs of early Christian writers, it’s helpful to understand the context in which Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 11. Please consider the following quotation: “1 Corinthians 11:4-16 contains the only reference in the New Testament referring to a headcovering for women and to an absence of a headcovering for men. Various early Church Fathers, such as Hermas, Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo and Tertullian also mentioned women’s headcoverings. Early Christian art shows women wearing headcoverings.” “During the ensuing centuries, women definitely wore the head coverings during the church service, especially when praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5). However, during the twentieth century, the practice of headcovering gradually disappeared from many churches, which dropped their requirement that women cover their heads during worship services. At different points in history, the style of the covering varied.” (Wikipedia: Christian headcovering) Plainly, the artificial headcovering was certainly utilized by Christian women from the earliest times until fairly recent times. This is important to remember as we now take a look at early Christian views on 1 Corinthians 11. Searching the archives of early Christian writings When searching the archives of early Christian writers, I attempted to be as unbiased as possible. I determined to list every author–regardless of his views. Frankly, I was almost shocked with the amount of information available from early Christian authors. There were numerous references to this issue. In fact, some authors went into great detail, and a couple of authors actually did an exposé of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. I was surprised learn how detailed several authors were about early Christian living, providing lengthy, almost Pharisaical discourses on exactly how men and women should dress, look, wear their hair, walk to and from church, adorn themselves, etc, etc. Regardless, it was a thrill to read words from Christian authors who lived, in some cases, during the very lives of those who had direct contact with the apostles themselves. A list of early Christian writers examined Almost 10,000 pages were scanned by computer, searching for key phrases such as “hair”, “veil”, “covering”, “lock [of hair]”,”tress”, “Corinthians,” etc, in an attempt to find every reference made to this subject. The writings of the following authors / documents were scanned: Clement, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus,Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria,Tertullian, Minucius Felix, Commodianus, Origen. Hippolytus, Cyprian, Caius, Novatian, Baptism of Heretics, Anonymous Treatise Against the Heretic Novatian, Anonymous Treatise on Rebaptism, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Dionysius the Great, Julius Africanus, Anatolius and Minor Writers, Archelaus, Alexander of Lycopolis, Peter of Alexandria, Alexander of Alexandria, Methodius, Arnobius, Lactantius, Dionysius of Rome, Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, The Homily Ascribed to Clement, Early Liturgies, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Theodotus: Excerpts, Epistles Concerning Virginity, Pseudo-Clementine Literature, Apocrypha of the New Testament, Decretals Memoire of Edessa and Ancient Syriac Documents, remains of the Second and Third Centuries, Recognitions of Clement, Original supplement to the American Edition: Gospel of Peter, Diatessaron of Tatian, Apocalypse of Peter, Visio Pauli, Apocalypses of the Virgin and of Sedrach, Testament of Abraham, Acts of Xanthippe and Polyxena, Narrative of Zosimus, Apology of Aeristides, Epistles of Clement (complete), Origen’s Commentaries on John and Matthew (partial), St. Augustine Volumes (Prolegomena; Life and Works; Confessions; Letters; The City of God; Christian Doctrine, Doctrinal Treatises; Moral Treatises, Anti-Manichaean and Anti-Donatist Writings, etc), St. Chrysostom Volumes: (Prolegomena; On the Priesthood; Ascetic Treatises; Select Homilies and Letters; Homilies on the Statues, Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians), Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, Gregory of Nyssa: Select Writings and Letters; Dogmatic Treatises, St. Jerome: Letters and Select Works, St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures; St. Gregory Nazianzen: Select Orations, Sermons, Letters; Dogmatic Treatises, Ambrose: Principal Works, Dogmatic Treatises, Ethical Works, etc. After almost 10,000 pages of computer scanning, about 13 authors were revealed to have commented on the Head Covering issue. This is by no means to suggest these findings are complete, but they are the only ones I was able to locate. Here’s what they had to say: A summary of what early Christian writers had to say on the Head Covering issue 1) Some believed that a woman should wear a veil while praying. This harmonizes with the above historical information about early Christian women. In fact, most of them believed she should wear a veil any time while in public, not simply when praying or prophesying. In other words, they interpreted the “covering” 1 Corinthians 11 to be literal and visible. (Note again that the RSV uses the word “veil” as a direct translation for “covering” in 1 Corinthians 11.) Does this mean modern Christian women should wear veils? See this article for more information.) 2) Practically all of the early writers believed length of hair was relevant, and specifically referenced “long hair” with regard to women. 3) Several authors either expressly stated or implied that a woman was permitted to cut her hair. None of them indicated that a woman should have “uncut hair.” Again, I could find no references whatsoever among early Christian writings that even remotely suggested the need for women to have uncut / untrimmed hair. Instead, they emphasized “long hair” and / or artificial head coverings. Having been brought up to believe the Uncut position, I actually found the utter absence of any reference to it in early Christian writings surprising, for it has always been insinuated by modern leaders to represents the “ancient path.” Actually, Uncut Hair appears to be a much more modern Christian practice than I originally believed. 4) Early Christian writers condemned long hair on men, indicating they should cut their hair. Yet, conversely, no reference condemning a woman’s cutting of her hair could be found. In other words, they spoke of the issue much, and men were condemned often, but women were never condemned for cutting their hair. This was because they believed “long hair” and / or an artificial covering was required for Christian women. An ‘author-by-author’ breakdown of early Christian views Below is a summary of all early Christian writers I could find making comments about a woman’s hair, either expressly or implied. Some of them spoke at great length, some made only brief comments. Here they are: Tatian (~AD 165)–Believed men should not have long hair. Implied that men with long hair are imitating women (he used the phrase “with shoulder exposed”– an expression elsewhere used with respect to women not possessing long hair). This seems to imply that if a woman’s shoulder was exposed, it was considered “not long”–implying that a man’s hair should be shorter than that, and a woman’s hair should be longer than that. Irenaeus (~AD 190)–Believed women should wear veils, although it is not clear if women were to wear veils at all times (as many early writers believed), or if only during prayer (as other early writers believed). Regardless, they all considered the “covering” to be a literal one, not merely “growing hair.” Clement (~AD 200)–Believed men should not have long hair, but very short hair, even shaved heads. His views were that men’s hair should never be so long as to interfere with the eyes. Women should have heads veiled whenever not at home, and faces covered, and long hair. Short hair or a shaved head for a woman was a sign of shame. These thoughts reflect the literal wording of our English Bibles, which clearly state that a shaved or shorn (sheared) head is an unacceptable covering for a woman, and a shameful condition (see 1 Corinthians 11:5-6). Tertullian (~AD 210)–Believed women should have their heads veiled at all times while in public, though he rightfully admitted tradition rather than Scripture suggested this. Men should not wear veils. Even virgins must be veiled, although he implied this practice was not followed in all the churches. He implied virgins had long hair, but the veil was necessary anyway (long hair did not substitute for a veil). He implied that some churches believed a woman’s long hair was a substitute for the veil (see 1 Corithians 11:15: “her [long] hair is given to her instead of a covering [perabolian: a veil, shawl, etc]). He implied that older women had shorter hair than virgins, indicating they must have cut it. He explained that the veil should cover the same region as unbound natural hair, at least down to the neck (to where the robe begins). In other words, the veil mimicked long, descending (“unbound”) hair (the Kata Principle). Although Tertullian gave a lengthy discourse on the Head Covering, I found it interesting that evidently no mention was made about the existence of any Uncut Hair position as is believed in the modern church. Cyprian (~AD 250)–Apparently believed men should not have too much hair. “Constitutions of the Holy Apostles” (a summary of what some early Christians believed, from ~ AD 200–300)–Believed men should not wear long hair, and that women should have heads “covered” when in public (presumably with a veil or another appropriate covering). Since they were to be covered “only in public,” this implied a removable covering, such as a veil–just as the other authors believed (although “unbound long hair” might have been construed as such by some). Again, no mention was made of it being sinful for women to cut their hair. Unknown Christian Writer (AD 200–300)–Apparently believed cutting the hair of women was permissible, and that wearing a veil was necessary. Athanasius (~AD 340)–Reported that women of his day had long hair and wore veils. Gregory Nazianzen (~AD 370)–Apparently believed women should wear veils. Ambrose (~AD 380)–Believed that men should not have long hair. He believed women should wear veils, unless they had long hair, which served as a substitute to the veil. This is exactly what I believe the Bible to teach, except that “veil” is a generic covering. Chrysostom (~AD 400)–Believed women should be veiled whenever in public. He believed they should wear long hair in addition to the veil. In his lengthy discourse, no mention of uncut hair was made as a requirement for women. Men should have heads uncovered only when praying/teaching (they could have covered heads the rest of the time). They should not have long hair. Jerome (~AD 400)–Reported that women of his day had long hair. Long hair on men was disgraceful and sinful. Women wore veils at all times. Captive women had their hair cut off to shame them. Women cut their hair to keep fleas, etc, out of it, and used the veil to cover themselves scripturally (i.e., to facilitate management). He therefore implied that it was not sinful for women to cut their hair. Augustine (~AD 415)–Believed men should not have long hair. Women must be veiled when in public, although he indicates that long hair could be used in place of a veil. Cutting or not cutting the hair was apparently irrelevant. What do these facts lead us to surmise? Right or wrong, early Christian authors clearly did not believe what is believed in our modern churches on the Head Covering. Instead, they believed what is literally rendered in all our major English Bibles translations–with the exception that many seemed to prefer insisting on their societal custom of women wearing veils in public. However, several of writers above rightfully admitted that if a woman had long hair, the veil was not bound by Scripture. So, we see that early Christian writers believed that “long hair” meant just exactly that: long hair, rather than “uncut hair.” When they read about a “covering,” they took that to mean a veil. They appeared to be in incomplete harmony on this understanding. However it should be noted that the Bible used generic wording for “covering,” indicating other viable artificial coverings are permissible (artificial hair, veils, scarves, or any respectful head covering that descends from the head per unbound long hair). Again: early writers did not interpret Paul’s writing to suggest that women were not permitted to cut their hair. In spite of lengthy discourses and intimate explanations, no mention whatsoever is ever made of the concept of uncut hair for women. I find it to be inconceivable that they could have actually believed the Uncut Hair position, yet never uttered a word about it in their many references to this topic. They also believed that a shaved or shorn head for woman was literally shameful; in fact, Jerome pointed out that captive women had their hair cut off to shame them. They believed a shaved or shorn head had to be literally covered, either all the times, or only when praying. One author admitted that the former suggestion stemmed purely from church tradition rather than from the Bible itself, and I concur. Finally, it’s interesting to note that some among us are referred to as “the Veil Brethren.” Although [wrongly] isolated by many Uncut brethren, the Veil brethren actually seem to be closer to the truth on the Head Covering issue that many among us, as evidenced by the above information. Like some of our early Christian authors, our Veil Brethren believe a woman should wear a veil at all times when in the public assembly. However, contrary to early Christian views, they believe that a woman must never cut her hair. Also, their “veils” certainly would not remotely qualify as appropriate head coverings in the eyes of early Christians, whose veils actually descended from the head beyond the shoulders (I believe early Christians were conceptually correct about this). Several early writers considered long hair to be a “natural veil” that replaced a literal one. If there’s no mention of the “Uncut Hair” doctrine among early writings, then when did this doctrine originate? If the Uncut Hair doctrine, per historical writings, was not practiced by the early Christians, then when did the Christian practice originate in force? Although I have yet to track it down (and would appreciate any feedback on this, and gladly update this writing), I have yet to historically locate it among any church we would consider “Biblical.” However, some might find it interesting what one notable Restoration Movement author had to say about the Head Covering: Alexander Campbell. Alexander Campbell’s comments on the Head Covering As one of the forerunners of the “Restoration Movement”–and its mission to “get back to the Bible” and away from religious traditions–I found Alexander Campbell’s words on the Head Covering to be most interesting. Consider the following quotation from Campbell taken from the Millennial Harbinger (April, 1854, p 203-7) in an article entitled Woman’s Rights: He that would have women to veil their own faces even in the synagogue, and to wear long hair for a covering in Christian assemblies, could not have made it either a duty, a privilege, or an honor, to claim the rights of a civil magistrate, a lawgiver, a legal adviser, a minister of state, a civil judge, or an envoy, ordinary or extraordinary, to some foreign government, as ministers of peace or of war. Campbell here seems to agree with the plain and obvious rendering of 1Corinthians 11:1-16, just as some early Christian writers also held: namely, that a woman’s long hair is a substitute for a veil, but the absence of long hair, the veil is required. Again, no mention is made of it being sinful for a woman to trim her hair. Also, in his translation of the New Testament (The Living Oracles, 4th edition) here’s how he translated excerpts of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16: Now I praise you, brethren; because, in all things, you remember me, and hold fast the traditions as I delivered them to you. 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… Wherefore, if a woman be not veiled, even let her be shorn: but, if it be shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be veiled. Now man, indeed, ought not to cover the head, being the image and glory of God: but woman is the glory of man. Besides the man is not of the woman; but the woman is of the man. And, also, the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. For this reason, ought the woman to have a veil on her head, on account of the messengers. However, neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. Besides, as the woman is from the man, so also the man is by the woman; but all from God. Judge in yourselves, is it decent that a woman pray to God unveiled? Does not even nature itself teach you, that if, indeed, a man have long hair, it is a disgrace to him? But, if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a veil. However, if any one resolve to be contentious, we have no such custom; neither the congregations of God. Notice that Campbell obviously believed (as did early Christian writers) that women should wear veils when praying / prophesying. No other translation I’ve read translates “Veil” more often than Campbell did. However, in verse 15, once again he emphasized that long hair was a substitute for the veil, which is entirely logical and Scriptural. The only disagreement I might have with Campbell would be that “veil” should be considered more generically, as mentioned previously. (Please also read also: “Should Christian Women Wear Veils?”) Early Christian writers unanimously understood the Kata Principle Again, Christians of Paul’s day would most likely have thought he was speaking of a veil or the like (when he spoke of “coverings” in this passage), and early Christian writings certainly verify this supposition. However, Paul taught that the wearing of peribolaion was certainly not necessary if a woman already possessed “long hair.” And, again, the Kata Principle indicates that “long hair” must be arranged in a “descending” fashion (when praying / teaching) in order to be a valid physical head covering that honors our spiritual Heads. When read in the proper context, 1 Corinthians 11 harmonizes seamlessly with itself and the customs employed in that day. It also harmonizes with the views of early Christian writers on this subject, who, on the other hand, never perceptibly mentioned any practice of “Uncut Hair” for women. Instead, their writings suggested that a woman’s long hair was a Biblically permissible replacement for a woman’s artificial head covering. CHAPTER 7 |
GOD. CHRIST. LOVE. FAITH. HOPE. TRUTH.