VEIL/CLOTH-COVERING DOCTRINE:
6 Reasons I Cannot Accept the Veil/Cloth-Covering Doctrine
MUST CHRISTIAN WOMEN WEAR VEILS/CLOTH-COVERINGS?
POCKETSERMONS.org
By Rick Cutter (contact)
1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is probably one of the most debated passages of Scripture. Some interpret this passage to suggest that women must have long hair. Others insist that a woman’s hair must remain uncut. And still others believe this passage implies that a woman’s hair (not head) should be veiled (or cloth-covered) either during worship only, while praying/prophesying only—or all the time while in public.
I’ve already examined the “uncut” and “long hair” positions in Fact-Checking the Uncut Hair Doctrine. Now let’s turn our attention to the “Veil/Cloth-covering Position.” I’ll just be noticing a couple of variations of this doctrine; other variations probably exist as well. (Please note: I sometimes use the “Veil Position” to mean the “Cloth-Covering Position” as well. They are considered the same.)
PLEASE BE SURE TO READ THIS ARTICLE FIRST BEFORE CONTINUING…
Why the Veil/Cloth-Covering Position is an Invalid Doctrine
Quick Review of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 (NKJV)
Before examining the Veil/Cloth-covering doctrine, let’s first refresh our minds on the passage in question, 1 Corinthians 11. Below is the New King James Version (widely accepted as one of the most literal modern translations, although other literal translations are similar).
Please notice that I’ve included [in brackets] key Greek words in their basic forms, anglicized for simplicity:
1. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
2. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
3. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered [kata*], dishonors his head.
5. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered [akatakaluptos] dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
6. For if a woman is not covered [katakalupto], let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered [katakalupto].
7. For a man indeed ought not to cover [katakalupto] his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
8. For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
9. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
10. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.
12. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
13. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? [akatakaluptos]
14. Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
15. But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for [anti] a covering [peribolaion].
16. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
*Each underlined Greek word will be defined as they are discussed later.
Please notice the anglicized Greek words (in brackets), which appear in their basic forms. These are very important words to clearly understand in this passage. Please also note specifically the two so-called “kalupto” words found in verses 5, 6, 7, and 13. These two Greek words (katakalupto and akatakaluptos) are critical in this discussion; indeed, virtually the entire Veil/Cloth-covering position exists due to improperly understanding their meaning.
Katakalupto, a verb, means “to cover up / to veil or cover one’s self.” Akatakaluptos, an adjective form of katakalupto, means “not covered, unveiled.” More on these critical two “kalupto” words in a moment.
…Now Let’s Modify the Text to Read as “Some” Cloth-Covering Advocates Might Prefer…
(Originally translated words are crossed out; added words are in caps)
1. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
2. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
3. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
4. Every man who prays or prophesies (DURING TIMES OF WORSHIP*) having his head covered CLOTH-COVERED dishonors his head.
5. But every woman who prays or prophesies (DURING TIMES OF WORSHIP) with her head uncovered NOT CLOTH-COVERED dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
6. For if a woman is not covered CLOTH-COVERED, DURING TIMES OF WORSHIP—let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved—DURING TIMES OF WORSHIP—let her be covered CLOTH-COVERED.
7. For a man indeed ought not to cover CLOTH-COVER his head—DURING TIMES OF WORSHIP—since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
8. For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
9. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
10. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.
12. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
13. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered NOT CLOTH-COVERED (DURING TIMES OF WORSHIP)?
14. Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
15. But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for OPPOSITE TO a covering.
*Not every Veil position holds that the veil (or a cloth-covering) must be worn DURING TIMES OF WORSHIP only. Some believe that a woman must be veiled (or cloth-covered) any time in public, or only while praying/prophesying (which is akin to reading from or teaching the Scriptures).
Here Are SIX INVALID ASSUMPTIONS of the Veil/Cloth-Covering Position…
As you can see from the above, there are several Scriptural inconsistencies/assumptions of the Cloth-covering doctrine. Some of these are more obvious than others:
(1) The word “covering” (see vs. 4-7) means “a veil or cloth-covering” ONLY rather than a generic “covering” as the Scriptures are literally translated to mean. This would mean that the “covering” could also include a woman’s long hair (see v. 15). By modifying “covering” to specifically imply a “cloth-covering” only, they further assume that it has to be removable (which is never stated or implied by Paul), which would exclude the possibility that a woman’s long hair** could be her covering (since long hair** is not readily “removable”). See assumption #6 below for more on the “Removable Covering” theory.
**IMPORTANT: I believe that the context of this passage implies that a woman’s “long hair” (koma) must be arranged “down-from and throughout” whenever she is praying/prophesying (teaching the Word). For a fuller understanding of this, please read Chapter 9 of Fact-Checking the Uncut Hair Doctrine.
(2) It is assumed that Paul is implying in this passage that a woman must be covered “during times of worship” only. In other words, any other time a woman would pray or teach the Word, she would not need to be head-covered. (This view is not held by all Veil/Cloth-Covering believers.)
(3) Some veil/cloth-covering advocates rightfully acknowledge that a woman’s long hair is her glory (v. 15). However, because it is her glory, they wrongly conclude that she must cover her HAIR (rather than her HEAD) so as not to compete with God’s glory. From this invalid assumption, other doctrines have been derived, such as the allowance for a woman to shear/shave her head (and wear a cloth-covering instead) in order to hide her “glory” so that it would not compete with God’s glory. This, of course, comes into direct conflict with verses 5 & 6, which condemn shorn/shaved heads on women. In particular, the Catholics apparently believe this and therefore it is said that their nuns must shave their heads and wear veils to cover their heads.
(4) Some veil/cloth-covering believers also maintain that v. 15—the most crucial verse of the passage (for clarity of understanding)—where it says that a woman’s long hair has been given to her “FOR a covering,” that should be changed to, “OPPOSITE TO a covering.” Thus, v. 15 would read: “(a woman’s) long hair is given to her opposite to a covering“—which makes no apparent sense unless perhaps to mean: “(a woman’s) long hair is given to her as opposed to a covering.”
(5) Additionally, probably all Veil/Cloth-covering advocates believe in the “Two Coverings” theory. This theory was disproved in the short article, Why the Veil Position is an Invalid Doctrine.
(6) Finally, Veil/Cloth-covering advocates also hold to the “Removable Covering” theory. This theory was also disproved in Why the Veil Position is an Invalid Doctrine.
Each of these six assumptions encounter serious logical roadblocks, so let’s examine each of them in turn.
ASSUMPTION #1: Assuming this passage (1 Corinthians 11:2-16) is speaking of “veils” rather than “coverings”
It could be argued that the entire Veil/Cloth-covering Position hinges on the reader’s belief that the Holy Spirit in this passage was speaking of “veils” (or “cloth-coverings”) specifically instead of “coverings” in general. Therefore I will spend a lot of time and try to leave no stone unturned discussing this invalid assumption.
While this may seem like a small thing on the surface, re-translating the Bible from “coverings” to “veils/cloth-coverings” has huge ramifications for how one could interpret 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. This has led to enormous division across the Christian world. Therefore, it is essential that we take our time to understand this clearly.
To come to this conclusion, Veil/Cloth-covering advocates attempt to make a case for why “veil / cloth covering” is the correct idea instead of simply “coverings”—which means their position opposes virtually every literal Greek-English translation since (and including) Tyndale’s 1526 Bible (the first printed English Bible).
So let’s take a deeper look at the definitions of the two “kalupto” words (katakalupto and akatakaluptos) to see if this cloth-covering position viewpoint is correct—which would mean that the vast majority of translation scholars through time would be incorrect.
As stated earlier, the first “kalupto” word—katakalupto (a verb)—is used three times in the New Testament (all in verses 6 & 7) and is defined as “to cover up / to veil or cover one’s self.” Katakalupto is a compound word created from two words: Kata (meaning “down from” and “throughout,” see link) and kalupto (meaning “to cover, hide”). Literally, it means “to cover ‘down from'” or, “to cover with a downward-directional covering (of any sort as defined by the author).” Because katakalupto appears in the New Testament in only 1 Corinthians 11:6-7, it’s difficult to get a grip on how this word was commonly understood in the Greek language. The good news, however, is that katakalupto (in its base form) appears 23 times in the Septuagint (noticed later), giving us a much better grip on its meaning. And an examination of the Septuagint will show that katakalupto certainly does not automatically imply a veil or cloth-covering. In fact, the word katakalupto neither implies what is being covered, nor what is doing the covering. Instead katakalupto is an entirely generic and versatile verb that can apply to virtually anything that covers virtually anything else. Of course, it’s up to the author employing katakalupto to determine what exactly is being covered, and what the covering actually is.
The other kalupto word, akatakaluptos (an adjective) is used twice (vs. 5 & 13) and is defined as “not covered, unveiled.” It too appears nowhere else in the New Testament.
HOW THE LITERAL TRANSLATIONS TRANSLATED THE KALUPTO WORDS…
The KJV (produced in 1611), NKJV (used above), ESV, NASB, and NIV all translated the kalupto words literally in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 using their primary definitions (“uncovered, to cover, covered, etc”) rather than their secondary definitions (“unveiled, to veil, etc”). The RSV (originally produced in 1946) and ASV (originally produced in 1900) used the secondary definitions (except in v. 7, where the RSV inconsistently used “cover” and the ASV clumsily translated it as: “For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled”. Fortunately, both the RSV and ASV translations—in their later revisions (the ESV was a revision of the RSV and the NASB was a revision of the ASV)—wisely and more accurately chose (in their updates) to discard “veil” and use the primary definition of the kalupto words instead (“uncovered, to cover, etc”).
Thus, essentially the entire literal Greek-English translation universe, from the very first (Tyndale’s Bible of 1526) to the latest, are in agreement that the kalupto words indicate “covering / to cover” (with anything potentially) but not “to CLOTH-cover” (specifically).
As stated, ignoring the body of scholars and choosing the secondary definition of katakalupto instead of the primary definition has enormous effects on the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, a choice which I believe has caused great division among Christian churches for centuries. Therefore—I repeat—it is essential that we take our time to clearly understand the simple reasons for this unfortunate, divisive misunderstanding.
UNDERSTANDING THE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A “COVERING” (generally) AND A “VEIL/CLOTH-COVERING” (specifically)
For one to discard a primary definition and replace it with a secondary definition, common sense would suggest that one must first be able to clearly show that the primary definition makes no sense for the passage.
Needless to say, the primary definition is the one that must be primarily assumed, for if we discard it for another, we run the risk of modifying the Word of God. Jesus said: “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). “Every word” of God is important, and men do not have the authority to change any of them. Later we’ll see that the primary definition makes much better sense than any other, which is likely why the body of scholars—from the earliest to the latest—left this passage alone, translating it literally using its primary definition.
But first, let’s consider just how critical the difference is between a “covering” and a “veil/cloth-covering,” and how ignoring the primary definition and choosing the secondary can change the meaning of the passage significantly. Clearly, “covering” is a generic word that could apply to many types of head-coverings (like long hair), not only man-made coverings.
A person can cover his house with shingles, his yard with grass, his head with a towel, his land with cattle, etc. In the Septuagint—also called the LXX, which was a Greek translation of the Old Testament—we find katakalupto being employed variously as land being covered with people, an angel’s face/feet being covered with wings, fat covering the entrails of a sacrifice, land being covered with clouds, people covered with dust, faces covered with disgrace, land being covered with nettles, the ark of the testimony being covered with a veil, etc. In fact, in only one instance does the LXX refer to a veil-covering for a person (Tamar, Genesis 38:14-15), and the veil was covering her face, rather than her hair or head. I say this because some Veil position believers, as mentioned, hold that veils/cloth-coverings are required to cover a woman’s hair, rather than her head. This tragic misunderstanding entirely distorts the main meaning of this passage and has resulted in the “Two Coverings” theory (which is disproved below in ASSUMPTION #5). By the way, to see a listing of each of the 23 instances of katakalupto in the LXX, see ADDITIONAL INFORMATION at the conclusion to this article.) Interestingly, in the Old Testament God never commanded women to wear veils during times of worship—or at any time, for that matter. Veil-wearing was a man-made custom then, just as it was in the early centuries after Christ. Also, examples of Christian women wearing any kind of cloth-coverings are totally absent in the New Testament. In fact, the only specific mention of someone wearing a veil-covering in the New Testament is in 2 Corinthians 3:13-16, where Moses wore a veil to cover his face—more than a thousand years before Christ. By contrast, long hair on first century women is certainly implied in the New Testament (see Lk 7:38; Jn 12:3; Rv 9:8). However, I believe that in 1 Corinthians 11 the Bible does necessarily imply that a woman should be artificially head-covered if long hair is absent.
However—if a Greek writer wanted to describe a cloth-covering only, kalumma (G2571) would be a far better choice. Kalumma is a very specific word that literally and simply means, “veil.” There is absolutely no logical explanation (that I’ve heard) as to why Paul would choose a generic word that means “covering” instead of a specific word that means “veil”—if Paul really meant for a woman to wear a veil (or cloth-covering) only as her covering. And Paul was certainly familiar with the word kalumma, using declensions of it four times in his second writing to these very same Corinthians (again, see 2 Corinthians 3:13-16). More on this later.
The point is, it’s obvious that katakalupto is an incredibly versatile word that by no means is limited to covering women’s hair with veils (or cloth-coverings) only. In fact, to understand katakalupto in 1 Corinthians 11, we must first determine both what is being covered, and what it is being covered with.
SO WITH THESE FACTS IN MIND, WE ASK:
IN 1 CORINTHIANS 11, WHEN KATAKALUPTO IS USED, WHAT IS BEING COVERED, AND WHAT IS IT BEING COVERED WITH?
As stated, to understand what katakalupto (lit. “to down-from cover”) is referring to in a particular context, we must determine what is actually being covered, and what it’s being covered with. We cannot assume that a cloth-covered is being implied. And in 1 Corinthians 11, this is certainly not a difficult puzzle to solve.
Paul clearly indicates that what is to be covered is a woman’s head (not her hair, see vs. 5, 6, & 13); and what her head is to be covered with is answered in v. 15, where Paul says:
…if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her [long] hair IS GIVEN TO HER [by God, obviously] FOR [anti] a covering[peribolaion; meaning, in this context, a “head-covering/head-wrapper/head-mantle/veil”; i.e. an “artificial head-covering”].
(1 Corinthians 11:15)
So, God obviously GAVE a woman her long hair to serve as her preferred covering. (I’ll notice the Veil position objections to v. 15 later; it suggests that this verse is translated incorrectly, and means something else entirely.)
SOMEONE MIGHT ASK:
“IF PAUL WAS SAYING THAT (SCRIPTURAL*) LONG HAIR WAS A WOMAN’S COVERING, THEN WHY DIDN’T HE JUST SUBSTITUTE THE WORDS ‘LONG HAIR’ FOR ‘COVERING’ THROUGHOUT THE PASSAGE” TO BEGIN WITH??
This is a great question, and I believe understanding its answer is vital to unlocking the Holy Spirit’s intended meaning for this passage.
The reason Paul did not immediately indicate (in vs. 5, 6, & 13) what the (generic) covering was, and instead suggested the generic idea of “to cover / covering,” was that the covering can be more than one thing. It is true that down-flowing, natural long hair (a woman’s glory per v. 15) is the preferred and primary covering intended by God. It’s the one He GAVE HER as her head-covering naturally. But in the absence of long hair (some women’s hair will not grow long, etc) it can also be necessarily inferred that downward-directional coverings of different types would also be acceptable for showing a woman’s respect for her spiritual Heads when praying/prophesying. In other words, long hair is naturally provided by God to a woman so that it’s not necessary for her to wear an artificial covering (normally)—but when long hair is not possible, an appropriate artificial covering would be needed. I believe that—as suggested by peribolaion—any respectful down-flowing artificial head-covering (see example of first century Christian woman praying in the catacombs) is acceptable in the absence of long hair, including veils, shawls, scarves, artificial hair, etc. And again—to be pleasing to God, when praying or prophesying—a covering, whether natural or artificial, must be downward directional and “throughout” (see Commentary for verse 4 in Fact-Checking the Uncut Hair Doctrine). I believe that a small oval doily on top of a woman’s hair—or a scarf that doesn’t even reach the shoulders, along with many other inadequate artificial coverings—would not meet the scriptural conditions of this teaching.
As far as “long hair” (a natural head covering) serving as the woman’s primary head-covering when praying/prophesying, this should come as no surprise to the reader. Paul explicitly refers to various lengths of hair six times in this passage (verses 5, 6 [three times], 14, and 15). This strongly suggests that long hair can certainly serve as the covering Paul refers to. On the other hand, Paul did not specifically mention “veil” [kalumma] once as a primary covering. And, as just demonstrated, the LXX makes it clear that katakalupto is a generic word, rarely used in the sense of women covering their heads, hair, or faces with veils.
PLUGGING IN DIFFERENT WORDS FOR “COVERING” TO SEE WHICH MAKES THE MOST SENSE…
What I’d like to do now is to plug in three kinds of “head coverings” that people have concluded for this passage—”veil,” “long hair,” and “growing hair [uncut] hair”—and see which makes the most sense. I’ll do this by replacing the kalupto words with each of those choices in turn for verses 5-7. The results might surprise you.
(a) Plugging in “veil/cloth-covering” for the kalupto words…
5. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled (or not cloth-covered) dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
6. For if a woman is not veiled/cloth-covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be veiled/cloth-covered.
7. For a man indeed ought not to veil/cloth-cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Although I’ve heard explanations for this, verses 5 and 6 don’t really make a lot of sense or flow well. Doesn’t it seem odd that Paul would compare “a bad apple to a good orange?” In other words, was Paul really saying that it’s shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, and then implying that the solution is for her to be veiled/cloth-covered? What about simply NOT being shorn or shaved (i.e., having long hair)? Would that still be “shameful”? Obviously not. This, from a Veil Position perspective, is at best unclear.
It makes much more sense to say, “if a woman is shorn or shaved, it’s shameful so let her have long hair” than to say “if a woman is shorn or shaved, it’s shameful so let her be veiled/cloth-covered.” At least in the first statement we’re contrasting a bad apple to a good one.
And lastly, inserting “veil/cloth-cover” doesn’t work at all for verse 7—unless one actually thinks that Christian men needed to be reminded to stop wearing veils/cloth-coverings “during times of worship.” It makes much more sense that he was reminding men “not to have long hair.” I believe that the problem with men in the first century was not that they were donning veils in church, but that they were wearing long hair in daily living.
(b) Next, let’s plug in another popular option, Thayer’s “to let the hair grow” definition for komao [v 14-15] (this is how the “Uncut Hair” position is derived):
. . . . . . . . . . .
5. But every woman who prays or prophesies not letting her hair grow on her head dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
6. For if a woman does not let her hair grow, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her let her hair grow.
7. For a man indeed ought not to let hair grow on his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
This position doesn’t seem to make much sense, especially since neither men nor women can keep their hair from growing. Even while being cut, one’s hair continues to grow. (For a full discussion of this and more, please read: Fact-Checking the Uncut Hair Doctrine.)
(c) Finally, let’s insert “long hair” for the kalupto words . . . (please recall that Paul said in v. 15 that a woman’s “long hair” was GIVEN TO HER “for a covering,” so that’s why we’re plugging this one in to test).
5. But every woman who prays or prophesies without long hair dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
6. For if a woman does not have long hair, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her have long hair.
7. For a man indeed ought not to have long hair on his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
. . . . . . . . . . .
This position works well in all three verses, flows smoothly and harmonizes perfectly with this passage, including, most notably, v. 15.
Paul appears to be referring to hair in three lengths: long, intermediate, and shorn/shaven (please recall that “shorn” essentially means “sheared, as a sheep” [i.e., cut very close, not merely “trimmed at the ends,” as Uncut proponents wrongly assume]). Substituting “long hair” easily makes sense in that it suggests women should have long hair (rather than the more popular “intermediate” lengths) so as to be in vivid contrast to men. Intermediate lengths would not necessarily be in vivid contrast. So, Paul appears to be saying to women: “Instead of having hair that’s not long, let your contrast be obvious; if not, you may as well be shorn/shaven in the eyes of God.” (By the way, we could also say the opposite regarding the man: if his hair is of intermediate length he may as well [in God’s eyes] have long hair, which is shameful for men [v. 14]). Furthermore, some have suggested that it was customary in early Christian practices for a woman’s head to be shaved as punishment for infidelity, thus shaming her.
The fact is, while all artificial head coverings can be used to scripturally cover a woman’s head, not all head coverings are limited to artificial head coverings. A woman’s natural long hair may also serve as a woman’s head covering, as v. 15 plainly states (I’ll notice the Veil position objections to v. 15 later). Again: the Bible indicates that scriptural long hair is the primary head covering God intended for the woman (whenever praying/prophesying).
WHAT THIS COMPARISON SHOWS US
Apart from the fact that some positions make more sense than others, I believe what this comparison should demonstrate to honest searchers of truth is that the “covering” certainly does not have to be confined to “veil-coverings-only” in order to make sense for this passage. This means we have no right to ignore the primary definitions of the kalupto words. Again, by doing that, we are modifying the words of the Holy Spirit, something God has strongly warned us not to do.
The Word of God must not be tampered with, even slightly—it must left in its original, unmodified form. That’s what “getting back to the Bible” means.
WHY THEN DO VEIL PROPONENTS INSIST ON “VEIL/CLOTH-COVERING” INSTEAD OF “COVERING” IN 1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-16?
In spite of all of this logical evidence, Veil position advocates resolutely insist that “veil/cloth-covering” specifically is the proper intent for this passage, rather than simply “covering” in general.
And it’s true that the concept of a “veil/cloth-covering” is a possibility; after all, it is indicated in the secondary definitions for the “kalupto” words (katakalupto and akatakaluptos). But, as stated, the concept of a generic “covering” is the primary suggestion of the kalupto words, and primary definitions cannot casually be swept aside unless a stronger case can be made for secondary or lower definitions.
So, let’s take a careful look at the how cloth-covering advocates justify their insistence that “veils/cloth-coverings” are meant by Paul instead of “coverings” in general (which would obviously include a woman’s natural “long hair” head-covering).
HOW SOME VEIL POSITION ADVOCATES JUSTIFY “VEIL/CLOTH HEAD-COVERINGS” (specifically) INSTEAD OF “HEAD-COVERINGS” (in general):
(1) First, they argue that the kalupto words were “derived from” kalumma (which in Greek means “veil”). [I haven’t seen any proof of this to date, but it makes no difference either way.]
(2) Second, they say that “since” the kalupto words derived from a word that means ‘veil,’ therefore when we read a kalupto word in the New Testament we must assume that it implies, primarily, a “veil” (or a cloth head-covering”). To bolster this claim, they go to the Septuagint (also called the ‘LXX’)—a Greek translation of the Old Testament dated to the 3rd century BC. There they point out that every use of kalumma refers to a cloth-covering—which shouldn’t be surprising since that’s what the definition of kalumma is (“a veil” is typically a type of cloth covering). Therefore, they say, since the kalupto words evolved from kalumma (unproven) and kalumma means “veil”—then the kalupto words must always indicate a “veil” (or cloth-covering). This circular reasoning is unconvincing.
(3) Third, they point out that when the LXX uses the kalupto words, in some cases a veil (or cloth-covering) is referenced in the same context. Thus, in their minds, this “proves” the connection between “veil” and the kalupto words. As an example, they refer to Genesis 38:14-15, where the LXX does indeed use a form of katakalupto (v. 15) in a context that does indeed suggest the covering is a “lightweight veil” (read the LXX’s Greek-English rendering for Genesis 38:14-15). They also refer to Esther 6:12, where Haman covered his head in shame. I’ll look at those two passages more closely in a moment.
(4) Finally, they argue that katakalupto (“to cover, to veil”) is a verb, and since “verbs are only actions (which is untrue)” then a woman’s covering must be something that can be put on and taken off at any time (i.e., it must be “removable”). Therefore they wrongly jump to the conclusion that the woman’s “head-covering” in 1 Corinthians 11 could not have been referring to her natural long hair head-covering—which is not readily removable—even though 1 Corinthians 11:15 plainly teaches that a woman’s natural long hair has been given to her (by God, obviously) AS HER (primary) HEAD-COVERING (in other words, her down-flowing long hair covers her head in the same way that a down-flowing veil/cloth-covering would cover her head).
WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS REASONING?
Regarding points (1) and (2) above, while it’s true that kalumma (used in both the LXX and New Testament) and the kalupto words (in 1 Corinthians 11) are similar (after all, their secondary definitions suggest “veils”)—the problem is that they are not the same. A car may be similar to a go-cart, but the two are not the same. The fact is that when the New Testament was translated, katakalupto meant “to cover up” (primarily), and akatakaluptos meant “not covered” (primarily). Neither of these words, at the time of translation in the first century, primarily indicated “veils.”
It is not a responsible use of the Word of God to argue that—because one word “derived from” another word somewhere back in time—therefore both the past and present words mean the same thing in modern usage. In other words, to assume that because word A “derived from” word B then A must always mean B is not only false, it’s clearly a dangerous use of the Word of God. That’s because it is very common for words to change slightly (or even dramatically) over time in meaning. For example, the word “golf” in English apparently derived from the medieval Dutch word “kolf” or “kolve” that meant “club.” But to understand “golf” to mean “club” today would render you a confused person. Also, the word “gay” just a few decades ago primarily meant “happy”; now it refers to a homosexual (imagine a person proclaiming his support for gay marriage while thinking “gay” meant “happy”). In a much more important sense, even if—somewhere back in time—the kalupto words “derived” from kalumma (which means “veil”), that certainly does not prove that the proper definition of the kalupto words in the New Testament age should be understood as involving “veil/cloth-coverings” only. Again, as stated repeatedly, the kalupto words, at the time the New Testament was written, were defined as follows: katakalupto primarily meant “to cover up,” and akatakaluptos primarily meant “not covered.” On the other hand, kalumma simply meant “veil.” Are these words similar in meaning? Absolutely. Do these words mean exactly the same things? No they do not.
Regarding point (3) above, the argument is: “When the LXX uses the actual kalupto words themselves, a veil (or cloth-covering) is sometimes referenced in the same context. This proves the connection between ‘veil’ and the kalupto words.” But an examination of katakalupto in the LXX proves the exact opposite. As stated, in the LXX, we see katakalupto being used 23 times, and employed variously as land being covered with people, an angel’s face/feet being covered with wings, fat covering the entrails of a sacrifice, land being covered with clouds, people covered with dust, faces covered with disgrace, land being covered with nettles, the ark of the testimony being covered with a veil, etc. (To see a listing of the 23 instances of katakalupto in the LXX, see ADDITIONAL INFORMATION below.) In no way does the LXX necessarily connect katakalupto to veils (or cloth-coverings); rather, it plainly shows katakalupto to be a generic, flexible word open to many uses—exactly as New Testament translation authorities translated katakalupto. In other words, understanding it as a generic “covering” rather than specifically involving “veils/cloth-coverings” is accurate; the reverse is not accurate.
Furthermore, in Genesis 38:14-15—the main passage that some Veil position believers showcase to drive home this point—we do indeed read of a head covering wrapper/shawl/veil (the Greek word here is “peribolaion,” not “katakalupto” which appears in the v. 15 of the LXX) with which Tamar apparently covers her face (v. 15). Theristron is the Greek word used by the LXX, and it’s apparently used as a synonym of katakalupto. Yet still, we see that Tamar’s veil (theristron) is down-covering her face rather than her hair (I point his out because the Veil position holds that veils/cloth-coverings are required to cover a woman’s hair, rather than her head; please also recall that Moses used a veil to cover his face as well, but there’s no mention of covering his head – 2 Corinthians 3:13). Furthermore, as mentioned, no Old Testament woman was ever commanded to wear a veil/cloth-covering anytime. If veil wearing really were a requirement, it seems odd that no helpful example of it exists (in either the Old Testament or New Testament). Furthermore, if katakalupto really did necessarily imply “veils/cloths covering a woman’s head,” then why did not a single example of it exist in the 23 references of it in the LXX with which to make that case? The bottom line is, Genesis 38 does not help the Veil position.
(For more on the Septuagint’s rendering of Genesis 38:15—and whether or not it proves that the kalupto words should mean “veil” and not “covering”—please see “ADDITIONAL INFORMATION” at the end of this article.)
Also, Veil position supporters sometimes look to Esther 6:12 (in the LXX) as evidence that the kalupto words always refer to veils/cloth-coverings. Unfortunately, not only is katakalupto not even used in this verse, the Bible doesn’t even specify what Haman used to cover his head with. It simply says (Esther 6.12) that, “…Haman hurried home, mourning, with his head covered (Greek: kata kephale).” “Kata kephale” literally means, “down from head.” So, while we know that Haman covered his head, we don’t know how he did so. Was it with a blanket, a shawl, a towel, his arms and hands, etc? The Holy Spirit deemed it too insignificant to specify. And worse, the “covering” was over a man’s head, not a woman’s. Therefore Esther 6:12—like Genesis 38:14-15—is not helpful as evidence for the Veil position.
And as to point (4), which suggests that because katakalupto (“to cover, to veil”) is a verb and therefore the covering must be a removable cloth-covering, but “cannot be a woman’s long hair” (which cannot be removed and then put back on at will)—on the surface this sounds like a good point. But it too fails. That’s because a verb is “a word that expresses an action or a state of being.” To assume that verbs may only be actions but not states of being is to misunderstand basic grammar. In 1 Corinthians 11:6-7, Paul is certainly not speaking of a woman needing a removable covering, he’s speaking of a woman needing to be in a covered state whenever she prays/prophesies. Therefore, as long as a woman possesses down-flowing long hair (whenever praying/prophesying) she meets the condition for obedience.
And when we look at how Paul uses the verb katakalupto in verses 6-7 it makes even more sense. There Paul writes:
6. For if a woman is not covered [katakalupto], let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered [katakalupto].
7. For a man indeed ought not to cover [katakalupto] his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
First, we see that Paul is clearly speaking about a woman or man having his/her head covered or not covered “whenever praying/prophesying.” So, if a woman has long hair when praying or prophesying, she is certainly in the state of being covered when praying or prophesying. Likewise, in the absence of long hair, if a woman veils/cloth-covers her head when praying or prophesying, she is certainly covered as well. But Paul is certainly not saying that a woman needs to have a removable covering when praying or prophesying (see also this link for more on why the Removable Covering theory is wrong). He is simply saying that whenever a woman prays/prophesies, she must be in a covered state. The state of having “long hair” plainly fits this passage well. Thus, it is incorrect to think that Paul’s use of a verb implies a removable covering.
(Finally, some also conclude from verse 6 that Paul must be speaking of two different coverings for women. The Two Coverings theory is discussed below in ASSUMPTION #5.
CONCLUSION:
I realize ASSUMPTION #1’s explanation has been lengthy, but the entire Veil/Cloth-covering position is based upon the misconception that the translation committees were in error for choosing the primary definitions of katakalupto and akatakaluptos. As has been shown, nothing could be further from the truth.
Not only do the primary definitions fit the context far better (as shown above), there is absolutely no evidence I’ve found to support the theory that these kalupto words derived from kalumma (veil) and therefore must always be thought of as veils/cloth-coverings. And the suggestion that the Septuagint “proves” that the kalupto words “derived from” kalumma has not been confirmed as true. An examination of the Septuagint clearly demonstrated that katakalupto was not directly related to veils in many—if not all—cases.
Finally, the theory that since katakalupto (‘to cover, to veil’) is a verb, and “since” verbs are actions, “therefore a woman’s covering is something that must be removable (meaning it can’t be long hair but must be a veil/cloth-covering”)—also fails. That’s because a verb is “a word that expresses an action or a state of being.” To assume that verbs may only be actions but not states of being is to misunderstand basic grammar. Paul is certainly not speaking of a woman needing to continually remove her covering, he’s speaking of a woman needing to be in a covered state whenever she prays/prophesies. Therefore, so long as a woman possesses down-flowing (and “throughout,” see this link) long hair when praying/prophesying, she meets the condition of obedience.
As I hope you can see, changing “covering” to specify a “veil/cloth-covering” has a substantial effect on this passage. There is an important reason Paul chose the kalupto words (cover, covering) instead of kalumma (veil/cloth-covering) in this passage. (Again, the reason is that a woman’s primary head covering is her natural (down-flowing) long hair, which replaces the need for artificial head-coverings – see 1 Corinthians 11:15). Failure to leave the Bible’s meaning alone leads people down wrong paths, even into false teaching, as we are about to see in the remaining problems of the Veil position…
ASSUMPTION #2: Assuming that a woman must have a covering “during times of worship only”
Many Veil position advocates absolutely insist—and firmly believe with all their hearts—that when Paul (in 1 Corinthians 11:5) speaks of a woman “praying or prophesying,” he is speaking of a woman “praying or prophesying during times of worship“—only. In other words, she need not head-cover herself any other time when praying or teaching the Word.
While not all Veil/cloth-covering advocates believe in the “worship-only covering” theory, establishing this point is absolutely critical for some veil/cloth-covering advocates. That’s because they also believe (per v. 15) that a woman’s long hair is her glory (which is true), and “therefore” her glory must be hidden “during times of worship” so as not to compete with God’s glory (which is false, as I hope to demonstrate in ASSUMPTION #3 shortly). Thus, they say, a woman must cover her hair (rather than her head) with a cloth-covering (e.g., a veil) when praying or prophesying at the public assembly of church (if not it would compete with God’s glory).
But the “during times of worship” assumption is besieged with many problems, including the following:
(1) The assumption that “praying and prophesying” was “during times of worship only” is a concept never mentioned in this passage.
The first problem is the simple fact that Paul never expressly stated anything regarding “during times of worship” in the Head Covering context. Men have added those words. (The comeback on this is that it is “necessarily inferred,” noticed shortly.)
So first, let’s establish that the Holy Spirit never spoke these words. Here’s what the Bible actually says (NKJV, 1 Corinthians 11:4-5):
“Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head…”
Notice that Paul did not say:
“Every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered during times of worship only dishonors her head…”
Therefore, the “during the assembly only” concept has been assumed by men. But is it necessarily inferred? I’ll examine that shortly.
(2) Prophesying involves speaking, and women were not permitted to speak in Christian assemblies.
Again, verse 5 says this…
…every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
Plainly, if one believes that “praying and prophesying” is taking place “during times of worship,” then we would have women prophesying in the public assembly. This is a direct contradiction to what the Holy Spirit said three chapters later in commanding that women must “keep silent in the churches” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35), thus destroying this theory.
Some Veil position proponents counter by arguing that Paul is simply speaking of a woman who simply “receives” a prophecy from the Holy Spirit (which one can do without speaking)—but this is not what “prophesying” means. Paul plainly described (in chapter 14) what prophesying in the assembly was. Prophesying is the actual act of “speaking forth” divine revelations to edify others.
Thus, while it’s true that a woman can pray silently, and it’s true that a woman can receive a prophesy silently—it is not true that a woman can prophesy silently, because prophesying involves “speaking forth” the prophecy, and is for the express purpose of edifying others in the Church, not just self.
The word “prophesy” comes from the Greek propheteuo meaning literally “to SPEAK FORTH by divine inspirations.” (I urge any reader who disagrees to find a single example, either in the Old or New Testament, of a person who prophesied without speaking.)
So, either women can “speak forth” during times of worship, or Paul wasn’t speaking about women prophesying during the assembly at all. Again, Paul was very clear that women were not permitted to speak in the public assembly of the church (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). Therefore, Paul is not speaking of “times of worship” because for a woman to prophesy she must do so at other times. (Were Philip’s daughters, who were prophetesses [see Acts 21:8-9], really allowed to prophesy openly in the assembly as long as their heads were veiled?)
In fact, Paul himself just three chapters later described characteristics of prophesying (same Greek word used, propheteuo) during Christian assemblies. In 1 Corinthians 14:3 he said, “everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort” (1 Corinthians 14:3). Then in the next verse he contrasts that with someone speaking in tongues: “He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church…” (1 Corinthians 14:4)—clearly suggesting that Biblically-defined prophesying involved speaking forth and edifying the whole assembly. Please notice that prophesying in the assembly involves one person to “speak” and others to “listen” (1 Corinthians 14:29-31). Therefore, to suggest that Paul was referring to women edifying themselves by prophesying to themselves is to overlook the very purpose of prophesying—which was to edify the church.
That means that to say that Biblically-defined prophesying was just the act of silently receiving a prophecy from the Holy Spirit is to misunderstand the word propheteuo. Prophesying was the combination of receiving (from the Holy Spirit) and then expressing a prophecy to others for their edification.
Plainly, women were not allowed to speak in the assembly, therefore their prophesying had to be done outside of it. Again, the Bible says: “…every WOMAN who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head…” We are not permitted by God to make minor changes to Biblical wording. Doing such nullifies the actual teachings of God. Jesus told the Pharisees that they were “nullifying the Word of God” by their traditions (Matthew 15:1-9).
As stated, the Veil position attempts to circumvent this reasoning by arguing that a woman can “prophesy silently to herself” during times of worship. Their proof verse is Colossians 3:16, where Paul instructs Christians to “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.” But this verse does not justify a woman to speak forth God’s Word via prophesying in the public assembly. Paul is commanding the Word of Christ to “dwell in them richly” as they do two things:
1) “…as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom…”
2) “…and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.”
These are two separate phrases, neither of which justifies a woman to speak forth God’s Word via prophesying in the public assembly.”
All of this taken together means, ironically, that the only time a woman is specifically disallowed from prophesying is DURING an assembly of the Church. While other times may be inappropriate as well, there’s no question that “during the assembly” is unquestionably disallowed by Scripture. Therefore, the context of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is certainly not “during times of worship.” This means that women certainly must be properly head-covered whenever praying (any time) or prophesying/teaching the Word (which is only allowed by her outside of the public worship).
(3) The assumption that a woman must be head-covered when praying or prophesying ‘during times of worship only’ is a not a necessary inference.
The Veil position reasoning for this goes as follows:
(a) Paul is speaking about traditions in the larger context of 1 Corinthians 11 (the first tradition being the Head Covering (vs. 3-16), and the second tradition being the Communion (vs. 17-E). This is Biblically-correct.
(b) When discussing the second tradition—the Communion—Paul is clearly speaking about “during times of worship” (see v. 17). This is obviously also Biblically-correct.
(c) “Therefore,” when speaking of the Head Covering tradition (vs. 3-16), it can be “necessarily inferred” that he’s speaking about “times of worship” also. I do not agree with this conclusion for the following reasons…
First, please remember that in v. 17 (when Paul is finished talking about the Head Covering and has proceeded to the Communion) it says, “In the FOLLOWING directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good” (RSV). I’m using the RSV here since some Veil position advocates use it as their favorite translation for this passage. So, in v. 17 we see that the RSV (correctly) suggests that everything Paul says from this verse forward belongs to its own context, which should not be intermingled with things he said when speaking of the first tradition (Head Covering tradition). If you will pardon the caps, PAUL HAS SHIFTED GEARS AND IS REVEALING A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SET OF TEACHINGS. Probably the only thing Communion has in common with Paul’s head covering teachings is that it too is a tradition of the Church. (It also becomes obvious that he could not have been speaking of the assembly because, as noted above, prophesying involved speaking, which women were not permitted to do in the assembly.)
It’s very important to understand that (in 1 Corinthians) whenever Paul spoke of things involving the assembly, he was very clear. He would say things like “…when you come together…” to signify that. We see this language by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:17,18,20,33, and 14.23,26—but no such language exists anywhere within the discussion of the Head Covering in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. Again, the first time in 1 Corinthians he indicates that he’s speaking of things within the Christian assembly begins in verse 17, as he shifts gears to talk about the Communion. This is clearly a new set of instructions Paul is delivering. To attempt to include the Head Covering teachings in the same context of the Communion teachings and to assume the Head Covering teachings are “therefore” referring to a public assembly of the Church is to violate one of the most common rules of proper Bible interpretation: which is misunderstanding the context.
But this is certainly not the only problem with the notion that “during times of worship” is necessarily inferred in the Head Covering teachings. Some apparently believe these two traditions were the only Christian traditions of the Church, meaning that therefore they were both referring to activities of the public assembly—which is not necessarily inferred at all. Furthermore, by speaking of “traditions” (v. 2) Paul was not necessarily stating that Christians had only two traditions, and no more. In fact, the Greek word for “traditions,” paradosis, means “a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.” This in no way exclusively suggests “items of public worship.” The two traditions of chapter 11 were likely highlighted because they were areas of misunderstanding and needed correction. The Head Covering was one that some were apparently having contentions over (v. 16), and the Communion was one that apparently had devolved into a common meal. Unquestionably, it could be said that early Christians had traditions involving behaviors outside of the assembly as well (they traditionally paid their taxes, dressed modestly, set aside money on every first day of the week for the ministry and needy saints of Church [1 Corinthians 16], etc).
To say that traditions applied to times of worship only is wrong. Take, for example, the children of Israel. We could say they had the “tradition” of blowing a trumpet prior to war. They also had traditional yearly feasts, which also involved assemblies, and so forth. Traditions can be, and often are, both inside and outside of formal gatherings. Speaking in human terms, a sporting team might have a tradition of a mascot on the sidelines during a game. The same team might also have the tradition of tailgating before and after a game, bonfires, and other rituals not involving their assembling into a stadium or meeting room. Also, during team meetings they might have traditional greetings.
In other words, just because Communion was “during times of worship” by no means implies that when he speaks of women “praying or prophesying” he was speaking of their praying and prophesying “during times of worship” only. Women prayed and prophesied outside of assemblies but—as has already been noted—they were disallowed from prophesying during assemblies, since prophesying involves speaking (and they weren’t permitted to speak – 1 Corinthians 14:14-35), thereby proving this could not have been speaking of “during times of worship in the public assembly.”
Therefore, the “during times of worship only” concept cannot be necessarily inferred from 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. Instead—to properly understand this passage—we must leave this passage alone, in its original form, minus all of the assumptions. When we do that, this passage can be understood to mean that a woman must be Scripturally head-covered—wearing a downward-flowing head covering (long hair as her primary, God-given head-covering, or a cloth covering in the absence of long hair)—anytime that she prays or prophesies (which, I believe, is akin to teaching the Word). And when we understand this, it becomes clear that holding to the Veil/cloth-covering position becomes burdensome for women—since now they must cover themselves any time they pray or teach God’s Word. This again illustrates what happens when we tamper with the Word. We end up supplanting the requirements of God with the traditions of men, thereby heaping burdens on ourselves and others never intended by God. And, ironically, the Veil position/cloth-covering has this occurring under “the Law that gives freedom” (James 1:25)—when the Law that enslaved (the Law of Moses – Galatians 4:3,24-25) said nothing regarding women’s requirement to veil or cloth-cover their heads or hair at any time, much less during times of worship.
(4) The need for a woman to show respect for God / Jesus Christ doesn’t end after the assembly’s dismissal prayer; rather, we must show proper respect to God in all we do.
The Bible is clear that our spiritual Heads must be honored at all times, not just during times of worship.
In fact, just nine verses prior (1 Corinthians 10:31) Paul had already informed these Corinthians that “whatever they did” (whether inside or outside of the assembly) had to be done for the glory of God. There it says: “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do [whether inside or outside of the worship], do it all for the glory of God.” Clearly, God’s glory must never be competed with, inside our outside of the assembly.
Yet some Veil/cloth-covering advocates apparently believe that worship is the only time God’s glory needs to “not be competed with.” Such advocates believe that a woman must cover her hair (not head) during times of worship only because her long hair is her glory (v. 15), and therefore her long hair competes with God’s glory. So it must be covered. But they seem to overlook the fact that nothing we ever do should compete with God’s glory—whether inside or outside of the worship (again, see 1 Corinthians 10:31). If these Veil position/cloth-covering advocates were correct, then women would not be permitted to display their glory at any time, an obviously nonsensical conclusion that could be used to justify women removing their long hair entirely, a direct violation of 1 Corinthians 11:5-6.
Even though things God has given to us may bring glory to us, the glory we receive must be redirected to the Lord, not ourselves. Nowhere in Scripture does the Bible teach that everything we have or do that could bring glory to us must be hidden or removed.
We have covered (in more detail) the idea of a woman’s long hair “competing with God’s glory” and therefore “needing to be hidden” in ASSUMPTION #3, covered shortly.
(5) The Veil/Cloth-covering position insists that “ministering angels are especially present during times of worship.” This means that Paul is suggesting that the only time a woman should be covered is “during times of worship,” when God’s angels are most active.
To understand this better, let’s take another look at 1 Corinthians 11:7-10. There Paul writes:
…[the] woman is the glory of man.
For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (1 Corinthians 11:7-10)
From these verses, the Veil position concludes the following:
First, they insist that the covering must be a “veil/cloth-covering”—and nothing else (disproved in ASSUMPTION #1 above.)
Second, they assume that the object of the woman’s veil is to make her acceptable in worship. (Notice that “in worship” has been added by them. The Bible does not say this; What it does say, however, is that a woman’s head covering makes her acceptable to God when praying or prophesying). Praying and prophesying can both be done outside of any formal worship, obviously.
Next, the Veil position assumes that ministering angels are “always and especially present during seasons of worship,” a “fact” (some say) that is “abundantly proved” in the New Testament. But not only is this “fact” not “abundantly proved” in the New Testament, it’s not taught anywhere as far as I know. (The verses some have offered up as “proof” are Matthew 18:10, John 1:51, and Hebrews 1:14—which say nothing of the such. Nor do any other verses of Scripture so far as I know.) Matthew 18:10 speaks of angels watching over children; John 1:51 is about Jesus telling Nathanael he would later see angels “ascending and descending on the Son of Man”; and Hebrews 1:14 refers to angels being ministering spirits that serve the saved (but NOT just in worship). Not one of these references teaches or implies that angels are “especially active during times of worship.” Once again, it is an assumption.
Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:10 (which is discuss in more detail in “ADDITIONAL INFORMATION” at the end of this article)—I believe God gives the woman (when Scripturally covered) the “authority” (from exousia, meaning “power, authority, permission, etc”) to make requests directly TO God in prayer, and to receive inspired messages directly FROM God’s Holy Spirit for prophesying (again, the purpose of prophesying is to edify others, not just self – see 1 Corinthians 14:3-6, 14-31). That “authority” is enabled “because of the angels” (of course, only God can initially grant such authority). Perhaps this means that angels are the messengers who transport a woman’s prayers to God, and they are also the messengers responsible for delivering the Holy Spirit’s message back to prophetesses (in receiving divine prophecy which occurred in the miraculous age). So if—when praying or prophesying—she fails to acknowledge the headship of man in her “authority chain,” she dishonors him. On the other hand, when her head is Scripturally covered, she honors not only him, but her spiritual Heads as well (for the head-covering teachings were from God, thus to ignore them would dishonor God/Christ also). Furthermore, to repeat, simply receiving a prophecy is not “prophesying.” Prophesying is the act of both receiving and “speaking forth” that prophecy for the edification of others (again, the very purpose of prophecy is to edify others). PLEASE SEE “ADDITIONAL INFORMATION” AT THE END OF THIS ARTICLE FOR MORE ON THIS.
Never does God say that the woman’s “permission” (to pray to God and receive prophecy from God) is available only during assemblies. Nor does the Bible ever indicate that angels have increased activity during times of worship, making those times the only times women should have their heads Scripturally covered. To assume that women may have permission to pray and prophesy with heads uncovered (except when in the assembly) is a dangerous assumption indeed.
Finally, the belief that “angels are more active in worship” more than likely came from Roman Catholic tradition. The Catholics write: “St. Thomas Aquinas explains this statement from 1 Corinthians 11:10 [the woman must have a symbol of authority on her head “because of the angels”] simply by saying that it is because angels are present at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.” Hence the abiding myth that angels are more active in worship than at any other time, which even if true would not release a woman from the responsibility of being properly head-covered when angels were less active either inside or outside of worship.
CONCLUSION:
The assumption that Paul—when saying a woman must be covered “when praying or prophesying” is speaking only of “during times of worship” is plainly false, and ventures into the realm of false teaching in that it assumes women may prophesy in the assembly. Nothing could be so plainly further from the Truth, since prophesying involves not only receiving a prophecy, but voicing it for the benefit of others, as Paul clearly described just three chapters later (1 Corinthians 14). And, as stated, speaking in the church assembly was forbidden for women (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).
ASSUMPTION #3: Since a woman’s long hair is her glory, it must be covered “during times of worship”—so as not to compete with God’s glory
This belief comes from 1 Corinthians 11:15, which says: “But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.”
The Veil position reasoning goes as follows:
A woman’s long hair is her glory (see v. 15). “Since” the context implies “times of worship” (which it does not, as refuted in ASSUMPTION #2) and since we should never glorify ourselves in worship (only God and Christ should be glorified), then a woman must cover her “glory”—her hair—with a veil (or another artificial covering), during times of worship.
Thus, a veil/cloth covering is actually a “hair covering” (to cover a woman’s glory); and since it sits on a woman’s head, it is therefore also the “head covering” that’s necessary to show honor to her spiritual Heads.
THERE ARE SEVERAL PROBLEMS WITH THIS REASONING:
First, as shown above, this entire discussion is not speaking of “during times of worship” only. This assumption was disproved in ASSUMPTION #2 above.
Second, the Holy Spirit here is instructing us about our spiritual Heads, and teaching that if a woman’s head (not hair) is properly covered when praying/prophesying, she shows proper respect to her spiritual Heads.
Third, to argue that a woman must hide her hair during the worship service (because it is her glory) would also mean a man would need to hide his wife during the worship service. That’s because Paul had already stated earlier (v. 7) that the woman is man’s glory (“…woman is the glory of man”). Therefore, if a woman must hide her long hair to not compete with God’s glory, then a man must hide his wife for the same reason. Since this is obviously absurd, the thinking from which it came is as well.
Finally, some quick comments about the assumption that “nothing that God gave to us for our glory can be presented in worship or it dishonors God.” This reasoning seems to overlook the fact that nothing we ever do should compete with God’s glory—whether inside or outside of worship. That’s because just nine verses prior (in 1 Corinthians 10:31) Paul said: “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do [whether in or out of the worship], do it all for the glory of God.”
Clearly, since God’s glory must never be competed with—at any time—this would suggest that a woman must hide her long hair at all times, not only in assemblies. This would also mean that a man (for the same reason) must hide his wife at all times, not only in assemblies. This would cause one to wonder why God “gave a woman her long hair” in the first place. Are women then better off without long hair so as to never compete with God’s glory? Thus, the “most righteous” of women might choose to allow themselves to suffer shame and reproach for the name of Christ (by removing their hair, which would be a shame to them and dishonor God, vs. 5-6)—at least, according to some. It is very logical for one to conclude that since long hair is a woman’s glory, and if it should never compete with God’s glory, then her hair would need to be permanently removed.
Regarding Catholic nuns, who cut off their long hair and wear veils, the Catholics state that “…the moment when the novice [nun] offers up her hair and renounces this instrument of feminine seduction was always central to veil-taking ceremonies.” At least Catholics are logically consistent in their false practices. If one truly thinks that a woman’s “glory” must be hidden by a veil, why not remove her “glory” to shame herself, thus also removing the need for the veil in the first place? Once again, it’s hard to imagine how all of these traditions entered into modern churches without the influence of the Roman church. Jerome (~AD 400) pointed out that women of his day (in general society) commonly cut their hair for flea control, and wore veils to cover their heads (per societal custom). How could a sheared or shaved head on a woman be condemned when praying/prophesying (as it is 1 Corinthians 11:5-6), if a woman planned to wear a veil in the assembly anyway? Therefore—as usual—other false practices can be justified from initial misunderstandings of Scripture. (Please recall Jesus said that traditions “nullify” the Word of God—Matthew 15:1-9). By contrast, please note that the Long Hair position (which I hold) maintains that a woman’s long hair should not be intentionally removed since it is her natural covering which “has been given to her as a covering [by God]” (1 Corinthians 11:15). However if long hair is not attainable then artificial coverings are required. This should be contrasted to the Veil/Cloth-covering position, some of whose advocates don’t consider a woman’s long hair to be her spiritual covering at all (the one that shows honor to her spiritual Heads when praying/prophesying, that is).
WHAT THE VEIL POSITION IS OVERLOOKING…
The problem with the Veil position on this matter is that it fails to recognize that even though some things God has given to us will indeed bring “glory” to ourselves, the glory we receive must be deflected to the Lord, away from ourselves.
In other words, glorious blessings are deflected to God, not hidden from God.
I am not aware of anywhere in Scripture where the Bible teaches that anything that GOD GAVE US for our glory must be hidden or removed. Our blessings must be deflected with great praise and gratitude to our God, and used to glorify Him—rather than hidden or discarded.
Also, assuming that a woman needs a veil/cloth-covering to cover her glorious hair completely misses the context. Such thinking fails to understand that this passage is about HEAD coverings, not HAIR coverings.
Note that the word “head” (kephale) is mentioned ten times in this passage (verse 3=3x; 4=2x; 5=2x; 7=1x; 10=1x; 11=1x [some translations add “head” in v. 13 for readability, but it’s not in the Greek]). Note also that the “covering” words (kalupto words) are listed six times (verse 4=1x; 5=1x; 6=2x; 7=1x; 13=1x). Meanwhile, a “hair covering” is never specifically mentioned.
Furthermore, v. 13 says:
Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? [akatakaluptos]
(1 Corinthians 11:13)
Although the word “head” does not exist in the Greek (it is supplied and italicized by most literal translators), I believe the concept is correct. That’s because “covering the woman’s head” is what’s being spoken of in the immediate context—rather than “covering a woman’s hair.” We know this because in the previous sentence katakalupto is used with reference to a woman’s head. And in the sentence before that it’s also used with reference to a woman’s head. Thus, in order not to be redundant, Paul excludes repeating “head” (in v. 13) knowing that the reader should understand this by now. He simply uses the adjective akatakaluptos (“uncovered/unveiled”). The noun “head” is (correctly) implied. Therefore, we see that it is not the woman’s hair that is to be covered, it her head.
At no point in this discussion does Paul switch from talking about “covering a woman’s head” to talking about “covering a woman’s hair.”
ASSUMPTION #4: The Veil/Cloth-covering Position does not harmonize with 1 Corinthians 11:15
1 Corinthians 11:15 is arguably the most crucial single bit of information for proper understanding of the Head Covering teachings, but some Veil/Cloth-covering advocates tragically misunderstand its meaning and therefore commonly disobey God’s Word.
To understand why the Veil/Cloth-covering position doesn’t harmonize with 1 Corinthians 11:15, let’s take another look at it. Paul said:
“But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her: for her [long] hair is given her FOR [anti] a covering [peribolaion=head covering/head wrapper/head mantle/veil].“
(1 Corinthians 11:15)
As we can see, the Bible could not have been plainer in pronouncing that long hair has been given to a woman FOR (anti: instead of, in the place of) an artificial head covering.
What this means is that wearing a veil/cloth-covering is clearly not necessary (except in the absence of long “down-flowing” hair)—and to insist that such a covering is changes the Message of the Word of God—something that Paul had already warned the Corinthians about when reminding them “not go beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6).
But veil/cloth-covering advocates believe that verse 15 has been wrongly understood. So let’s take a closer look at their thinking to better understand why…
VEIL POSITION #1
There are a couple of different Veil positions on verse 15 that I’m aware of, which I’ll call “Veil Position #1” and “Veil Position #2.”
The first position holds that Paul was simply saying the following in v. 15:
“But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her [long] hair is given to her for a [body] covering [i.e., to cover Eve’s nakedness in the Garden of Eden].”
(1 Corinthians 11:15)
So, Veil position #1 believes that the “covering” in v. 15 is actually a body covering Eve needed to cover her nakedness while in the Garden. In other words, it was like an article of clothing needed to cover herself—a “body covering”—not to be confused with a woman’s head covering that’s needed to show respect to her spiritual Heads. The reason they think it’s speaking of Eve’s body covering comes from verses 8 & 9, where Paul said…
8. For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
9. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
(1 Corinthians 11:15)
Obviously, these verses hark back to Adam and Eve in the Garden, and Veil Position #1 maintains that this “context” extends all the way through v. 15.
The problem is that while it’s true that verses 8 & 9 imply Adam & Even in the Garden, Paul never wavered from his major topic—which was to provide reasons why women needed to be head-covered (whenever praying or prophesying) and men didn’t.
Thus, the suggestion that women may allow their long hair alone to cover their bodies when naked is invalid. In fact, both Adam and Eve were still considered naked—nor did Eve’s long hair, even when combined with fig leaves, seem to help much. Genesis 2:26 says that “…they were both naked and were not ashamed,” and, after sinning, “they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings” (Genesis 3:7). But that wasn’t good enough either, so God “made [for them] tunics of skin, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21).
However, at no point does the Bible suggest that Eve’s long hair was sufficient as a body covering. My conclusion would be that if long hair and fig leaves didn’t work for Eve in the Garden, they wouldn’t work for the Corinthian woman either.
VEIL POSITION #2
This brings us to Veil Position #2. Veil Position #2 wants nothing to do with the “body covering” theory, instead taking an entirely different approach. It in essence suggests that translators have greatly misled Bible readers as to the meaning of the Greek word anti in v. 15. Here’s how they think v. 15 should read:
But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her OPPOSITE TO [anti] a covering.
(1 Corinthians 11:15)
…instead of the way all known reputable, literal translations rendered/understood it:
But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her [long] hair is given to her FOR/AS a covering.
(1 Corinthians 11:15)
Obviously, they believe anti doesn’t suggest “for/instead of/in the place of” (as all literal Greek-English translation committees understood it) but rather “over against, opposite to, before.”
So let’s find out if they are right and all of the committees are wrong…
HOW SCHOLARS HAVE DEFINED ANTI
First, let’s look at the definition of anti. Since scholars seem to be in total harmony on how anti is defined, I’ll use Strong’s lexicon as an example:
ANTI (G473)
Pronunciation: an-tee’ / a primary particle; prep
Total occurrences: 22 (listed below)
Definition:
(1) over against, opposite to, before; (2) for, instead of, in place of (something) – instead of / for / for that, because / wherefore, for this cause
Now let’s take a look at how each of the major, reputable, literal translations translated verse 15 (and anti)…
HOW THE MAJOR LITERAL TRANSLATIONS RENDERED VERSE 15 (including the 1611 KJV)…
Because Veil proponents normally use the KJV, I’ll also throw in the very first KJV edition—the 1611 King James Version. I’ll also include the first English Bible ever, The Tyndale Bible. Notice that I’ve capitalized how the translators translated anti:
The Tyndale Bible – NT (1526)
…if he have longe heere: and a prayse to a woman yf she have longe heere? For her heere is geven her TO COVER HER with all.
King James Version (present)
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering.
King James Version (original 1611 edition)
But if a woman haue long haire, it is a glory to her: for her haire is giuen her FOR a couering.
King James Version (original 1769 edition, used today)
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering.
New King James Version
But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her FOR a covering.
New American Standard Bible
but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her FOR a covering.
American Standard Version (old version of the NASB)
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering.
English Standard Version
but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her FOR a covering.
Revised Standard Version (old version of the ESV)
but if a woman has long hair, it is her pride? For her hair is given to her FOR a covering.
New International Version (present)
but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her AS a covering.
Obviously, there is tremendous harmony among these many reputable scholars over the centuries as to how anti should be understood—dated all the way back earlier than the King James Version of 1611. They were overwhelmingly in agreement that anti should be literally translated (or understood to mean) “for/as.”
And given the fact that the KJV translators hailed from the Church of England, therefore holding to the Veil position, it’s interesting that it neither translated the kalupto words with veils, nor changes anti to mean “opposed to” or something else.
Why? Because these committees were actually trying to translate the Bible literally and accurately.
But let’s dig deeper and see if the scholars really all got it right in how they understood the Greek word anti…
A LIST OF EVERY NEW TESTAMENT USE OF ANTI (22 in all)
To make sure translators did indeed have a proper grasp on how anti was understood when the New Testament was written, let’s take a quick look at every New Testament instance of it (22 in total). I’ve categorized the verses into groupings of how it was used, from the most common usage to the least common usage:
[Mat 2:22 KJV] But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of [NKJV=”in the place of”] his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:
[Mat 5:38 KJV] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for [in the place of] an eye, and a tooth for [in the place of] a tooth:
[Mat 20:28 KJV] Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for [in the place of/ instead of] many.
[Mar 10:45 KJV] For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for [in the place of / instead of] many.
[Luk 11:11 KJV] If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for [in the place of / instead of] a fish give him a serpent?
[Rom 12:17 KJV] Recompense to no man evil for [in the place of / instead of] evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
[1Co 11:15 KJV] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for [in the place of / instead of] a covering.
[Heb 12:2 KJV] Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for [in the place of / instead of] the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
[Heb 12:16 KJV] Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for [in the place of / instead of] one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
[James 4:15 NKJV] [Instead] you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.”
[1 Peter 3:9 NKJV] not returning evil for [in the place of / instead of] evil or reviling for [in the place of / instead of] reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing.
[Matthew 17:27 NKJV] “Nevertheless, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast in a hook, and take the fish that comes up first. And when you have opened its mouth, you will find a piece of money; take that and give it to them for [in the place of / instead of] Me and you …”
[1 Thessalonians 5:15 KJV] See that none render evil for [in the place of / instead of] evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men.
[Luke 12:3 NKJV] “Therefore [instead] whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops.
[Luke 1:20 NKJV] “But behold, you will be mute and not able to speak until the day these things take place, because [instead] you did not believe my words which will be fulfilled in their own time.”
[Luke 19:44 NKJV] “and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because [instead] you did not know the time of your visitation.”
[John 1:16 NKJV] And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for [because of] grace.
[Acts 12:23 NKJV] Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, [because] he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died.
[Ephesians 5:31 NKJV] “For [Because of] this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”
[2 Thessalonians 2:10 NKJV] and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because [instead] they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
NOW, LET’S BREAK ALL THAT DOWN TO BETTER SEE HOW THE HOLY SPIRIT COMMONLY USED ANTI
Of the above uses of anti (ignoring for now 1 Cor. 11:15), anti is used in the sense of:
“for/instead [of]/in the place of” (15x) 71.4%
“because/because of” (6x) 28.6%
“OPPOSITE TO” (0x) 0%
Clearly, “instead [of]/in the place of” is by far the most common New Testament usage of anti (at least 71%). In fact, it is so predominant that it suggests that the secondary definition of anti (“for/instead [of]/in the place of, etc”) had become, at least by Biblical times, the primary definition.
It also makes the best sense for 1 Corinthians 11:15, just as all seven major literal translations indicated (KJV, NKJV, NASB, ASV, ESV, RSV, CSB—and even the NIV, along with the Tyndale Bible). By the way, it also best fits the entire context of verses 2-16, which I’ll notice momentarily.
On the other hand, the second most-used interpretation, “because of,” makes no sense for 1 Corinthians 11:15 (“her long hair is given to her because of a covering”). Therefore none of the translation scholars chose “because of” for anti in 1 Corinthians 11:15. Instead, the all chose “for/as” which basically means “as/instead of/in the place of” and the like.
Plainly, “opposite to” makes no good grammatical sense whatsoever for v. 15 (although “as opposed to” makes great sense, and falls in line with how scholars translated anti). Hence, no reputable translation committee through the centuries translated anti to mean “opposite to.” To do so would have indicated a lack of scholarship on their part.
So—given the overwhelming agreement on the understanding of anti—the case should be closed and the Veil/Cloth-covering position dismissed as soon as one reads verse 15. It simply “means what it says.”
But Veil position 2 disagrees…
WHY VEIL/CLOTH-COVERING POSITION #2 DISAGREES
As stated, Veil position #2 insists that v. 15 should read something like this:
“But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her OPPOSITE TO a covering.”
(1 Corinthians 11:15)
And while it’s clear that this is a grammatically strange and confusing sentence that no reputable translation committee chose for anti (indeed, I’m not aware of any English translation on earth, including the most liberal “thought-for-thought” versions, that chose “opposite to”), supporters of Veil/Cloth-covering position #2 firmly hold to their guns.
They contend that the reason Paul is saying “opposite to” is that he’s actually referring to not one, but two “opposite” and distinct head coverings. The first head covering is the woman’s long hair. And the second head covering is an artificial covering (i.e. “veil/cloth-covering”). These are two totally different coverings, they say, that are “opposite to” each other. They have different purposes that shouldn’t be confused. They insist that Paul didn’t want readers to be confused and think that “long hair” could serve as a woman’s head covering (to show respect to her Heads), when he was really trying to tell them that it was just her “natural” covering (her glory), and no more. I’ll discuss problems with this theory momentarily.
BUT DOESN’T THE WORD “ALSO” (in v. 6) IMPLY THERE ARE TWO COVERINGS FOR CHRISTIAN WOMEN?
Another issue that arises for Veil position #2 advocates arises in verse 6, which says:
“For if a woman is not covered [katakalupto], let her ALSO be shorn…”
(1 Corinthians 11:6)
That word “ALSO,” they say, implies two different coverings. The first covering, they say, is the “veil-covering,” and the second covering (assumed from Paul’s use of the word “shorn”) refers to her “natural-covering.”
So, they believe Paul is saying that if a woman doesn’t have an artificial covering, then she may as well ALSO lose her “natural” covering [which is a completely different type of covering].
Veil position #2 also attempts to provide evidence for the “two coverings” theory by contrasting what Paul said about a woman’s long hair to what he said about (in their view) the “veil/cloth-covering.” Their argument is that the woman’s long hair is called her natural covering (see v. 14), but the “veil-covering” (or so they believe) is described as a “sign of authority on her head” (see v. 10). For some reason they fail to see that a woman’s spiritual head covering can also be her natural covering, a misunderstanding arising from failure to understand the proper definitions of the kalupto words (see ASSUMPTION #1).
They also seem to entirely ignore Paul’s contrasting of “dishonor/shame” to “glory”—which are opposites. Paul is clearly contrasting things that brought “dishonor” and “shame” to men and women (and their spiritual Heads) versus those that brought “glory” and “honor” to both themselves and their Heads (see vs. 4-7, 13-15). When we closely examine those verses, we see that what brings shame/dishonor to a man (and his Heads) is long hair (v 4 & 14), and what brings shame to a woman is being shorn or shaven (see vs. 4-6). On the other hand, what brings glory (the opposite of shame and dishonor) to a woman is her long hair (see vs. 5,6,13,15). Therefore the connection between long/short hair with shame/dishonor is unmistakable, thus directly linking “long hair” (a woman’s “glory”) to her spiritual head covering as well.
BUT THE MAIN REASON WHY VEIL POSITION #2 IS WRONG IS…
In spite of this unmistakable reasoning, the main reason Veil position #2 is wrong actually gets back to ASSUMPTION #1—which the entire Veil position hinges on.
In ASSUMPTION #1 it was shown that assuming the kalupto words always imply veils is mistaken. Of course, when it is understood that the kalupto words do not always imply veils, the “two covering” theory collapses. (Notice how that when we leave the Bible alone, and not inject our assumptions, the Bible flows logically, simply, and harmoniously.) In other words, “covering” really does mean “covering” (meaning any type of head covering, not just veil/cloth-coverings), and “for” really means “for” (not “opposite to”). Yes, verse 15 simply means exactly what it says—just as every major reputable translator rendered it: A woman’s long hair has indeed been given to her for/as/instead of any artificial head covering. In other words, a woman’s “covering” is primarily downward directional long hair (or when absent, an appropriate downward directional artificial covering).
Thus we can hopefully see why Paul chose the generic kalupto “covering” words rather than the more specific kalumma (“veil”). This was necessary because the “covering” can be of various types—not only long hair, but also (in a secondary sense) an artificial covering. Keeping the “covering” flexible in its meaning therefore became necessary. (By the way, artificial coverings are secondary options, since God naturally GAVE the woman her long hair as the primarily covering. Furthermore (as pointed out in ASSUMPTION #3) just because a woman’s long hair is her “glory” in no way suggests she must “hide it” during worship (or anytime else). The glorious blessings God gave us must not be hidden, but rather used to bring more glorify to God, the Giver of all good things. Never does the Bible teach that Christians must hide all God-given blessings during times of worship so as not to insult their Maker. If that is the case, a man must literally cover his wife when he is praying/prophesying, because “she is the glory of the man” – see verse 7. It’s a bit like our good deeds; while we should not flaunt them, they cannot be hidden—in fact, they bring glory to God. Jesus said: “You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven“ (Matthew 5:14-16). The same is true of our gifts and talents. We should not bury them (like the one-talented man did), but put them to use, even doubling them if possible (Matthew 25:14-30). Similarly, a woman is not to cover her “glory” (long hair), she is to COVER HER SHAME (if she has a shorn/saved head). Likewise, a man is not to cover his wife (his glory – v. 7) during worship (or anytime)—but she too, with him, should openly glorify God and praise Him through Jesus Christ our Lord.
So, getting back to verse 6—when we leave the text alone and let it flow naturally—it suggests this:
“For if a woman is not COVERED (primarily with long hair, or, secondarily, an appropriate artificial covering), let her also be shorn.”
Simplifying it further, we can understand v. 6 to say: “For if a woman DOES NOT HAVE LONG HAIR, let her also be shorn.”
This makes—by far—the most logical sense for what Paul is saying in this passage.
So, instead of jumping to the conclusion that Paul is speaking of two head coverings for women, it makes much better sense that Paul is saying this (to women): “Instead of having hair that’s not long, let your contrast be obvious; if not, you may as well be shorn/shaven in the eyes of God.” (We could also say the opposite regarding the man: if man’s hair is of intermediate length, then he may as well (in God’s eyes) have long hair, which is shameful for men [v. 14]). I believe God expects a clear distinction between the sexes.
Even Greek-English translation scholars (see above)—who thought the kalupto words implied veils—admitted that a woman’s long hair was a substitute for the veil. As shown previously, every major, reputable literal Greek-English translation on earth translated anti (in v. 15) as “for/as” rather than “opposite to.” This includes the few who translated the kalupto words to suggest veils (such as the RSV, ASV, and Alexander Campbell’s Living Oracles translation). In fact, Alexander Campbell—an early leader of the “back to the Bible” movement—actually believed (correctly) that (per v.15) long hair was a SUBSTITUTE for the veil, thus rendering artificial head coverings unnecessary provided a woman had long hair. In other words, he believed v. 15 meant exactly what it says.
Campbell wrote: “[God]… would have women to veil their own faces even in the synagogue, and to wear long hair for a covering in Christian assemblies.“ As for the RSV and ASV, they corrected their incorrect views of the kalupto words in later revisions (the ESV and NASB, respectively), thus making the entire body of literal Greek-English translation committees—from all the way back to 1611 scholars (and earlier)—in 100% agreement on how the kalupto words should be translated. Furthermore, despite how the RSV and ASV (incorrectly) translated the kalupto words, their translation of anti was completely harmonious with the other literal translations, meaning they too considered the veil unnecessary (if long hair existed).
I realize that may have sounded confusing. If so, please be sure to read Why the Veil/Cloth-Covering Doctrine is Invalid. This article irrefutably destroys any notion of a “second head-covering” being spoken of by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16.
ANOTHER PROBLEM FOR THE VEIL/CLOTH-COVERING DOCTRINE
Here’s another problem for the Veil/Cloth-covering doctrine:
Why would Paul announce his ominous warning (in v. 16)—if what he taught in (v. 15) harmonized with what the Corinthians were already doing?
Here’s what I mean: As noted in Why the Veil/Cloth-Covering Doctrine is Invalid, wearing cloth-coverings of various sorts has been a traditionally accepted practice for literally thousands of years, and well before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. Such traditions were also alive and well during the first century Roman Empire—when the New Testament was written.
So with that in mind, please take another look at verses 15 and 16:
But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
(1 Corinthians 11:15:16)
As you can see, verse 16 seems to be a warning to opponents of Paul’s teaching that “long hair removes the need for artificial coverings.” Paul’s warning seems to imply that there were Christians who might be causing trouble over Paul’s teaching. He seems to be saying: “If anyone wants to argue over my teaching that a woman’s long hair is a valid replacement for any artificial head covering, he should know that—even though this teaching is not a tradition of society—it is certainly a tradition of the churches of God (see v. 1).”
Paul seems to recognize that his teaching could be controversial in the Church since it’s different than what they may have expected based on societal customs. He seems to be telling the Corinthians that veil wearing—though traditionally popular in that day—was certainly not required by God (provided she had long descending hair), and that anyone who wanted to argue that cloth-coverings were always required by God should know that “we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.” Although speaking of a different matter, it could be truthfully said that “…whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away” (2 Corinthians 3:16). There is no longer any need for a woman to wear a veil/cloth-covering as long as she has long (descending) hair. God’s traditions are not the same as man’s.
Again, why would Paul expect conflict over something they probably were already doing on a regular basis anyway (per societal customs)? It makes much more sense to think that Christians would resist the new idea that “artificial coverings are obsolete for women who already have long (and descending throughout) hair”—than they would resist the long entrenched tradition of wearing cloth-coverings which they were probably already doing.
It would be like saying to modern women: Discard your traditional practice of tight-fitting, sexually attracting clothing, and replace it with the godly practice of decent, respectable clothing–fitting for women who profess godliness. Such a teaching would stand a much greater chance of being opposed than telling women to “just continue to wear the same clothing common among worldly women.”
ASSUMPTION #5: Assuming this passage (1 Corinthians 11:2-16) is speaking of TWO COVERINGS
Probably all Veil/Cloth-covering advocates believe in the “Two Coverings” theory. This theory was disproved in the short article, Why the Veil Position is an Invalid Doctrine.
ASSUMPTION #6: Assuming this passage (1 Corinthians 11:2-16) is speaking of REMOVABLE COVERINGS
Many Veil/Cloth-covering advocates believe in the “Two Coverings” theory. This theory was disproved in the short article, Why the Veil Position is an Invalid Doctrine.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS
In 2 Peter 3.15-16, Peter—in his closing Biblical words—warned that some people would take Paul’s difficult-to-understand writings and twist them “to their own destruction.”
He then warned his readers to “be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.”
1 Corinthians 11:3-16 definitely qualifies as a complex passage of Paul’s. Therefore we must exercise extreme caution when attempting to discover the truth here (and elsewhere). We must never resort to assumptions or hunches to determine “God’s will.” We must lay aside the blinders of pride and traditional beliefs and accept the simple facts of Scripture, never forgetting that we’re dealing with the Word of God. And we should never base our conclusions on the words of men, including quotations of famous Christians or early Christian authors, who were often provably wrong in many things they believed. Heavy reliance on commentators is a recipe for disaster.
Truth-seeking demands that we cannot loosely interpret Scripture; every word is important. Jesus said: “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Mt 4.4).
Yet the Veil position has based itself on several unsupportable assumptions.
First, it has overlooked the most basic and primary understanding of this passage. This is what puzzles me the most about this position. In my view, before we start entertaining difficult-to-understand (and explain) positions, we should first assume that the Bible means exactly what it says in its most simple form. True, certain translations can be off here or there, but it’s typically not difficult, with a little study, to see who’s done the more accurate job of translating (and it’s not those who’ve substituted “veil” for “covering”—see ASSUMPTION #1 above). For example, complicating the passage by assuming Paul speaks of two head coverings for the woman, instead of simply leaving the Bible alone and understanding that only one is spoken of, leads them down the wrong path. “Covering” (generically used) is the primary and more accurate understanding, and renders a far more logical, direct, and easy-to-understand conclusion.
Second, they have ignored the vast body of literal scholarship for the kalupto words (the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and ESV) apparently (per some) because of the ludicrous notion that scholars from the 1700-1800s “knew more” (as discussed in ADDITIONAL INFORMATION below). Yet even the RSV and ASV scholars translated v. 15 to read that “a woman’s [long] hair is given to her FOR A COVERING.”
Yes, Jesus was right when He warned that when we add even seemingly small, harmless teachings to God’s Word—teaching them as “truth” and requiring others to obey them—we indeed nullify the teachings of God.
IN CONCLUSION: UNDERSTANDING 1 CORINTHIANS 11:3-16 HOW PAUL LITERALLY INTENDED IT TO BE UNDERSTOOD (in my view)…
So, let’s wrap it all up by re-reading 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 in the way that I believe Paul literally intended it to be understood:
1. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.
2. Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
3. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered [kata, which means “down from,” suggesting something “down from” his head], dishonors his head [Christ].
5. But every woman who prays or prophesies [any time, not just during an assembly] with her head uncovered [akatakaluptos means “not covered”] dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
6. For if a woman is not covered [katakalupto means “to cover”], let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered [katakalupto means “to cover”].
7. For a man indeed ought not to cover [katakalupto means “to cover”] his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
8. For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
9. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
10. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.
12. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
13. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? [akatakaluptos means “not covered”]
14. Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
15. But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for [anti, which is primarily used in the sense of “instead of/in the place of” in the New Testament, 71% of the time] a covering [peribolaion; meaning, in this context, a “head-covering/head-wrapper/head-mantle/veil, etc.”; thus Paul is teaching that a woman’s long hair is a valid replacement for artificial head coverings].
16. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God [Paul obviously anticipated conflict over this teaching, probably because of the long entrenched cloth head-covering traditions].
When we leave the Bible alone—in its original, unaltered state—it makes complete sense. But when we force our own hunches into these verses, we run into all sorts of difficult explanations.
Although speaking of a different matter, as stated, it can accurately be said that “…whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away” (2 Corinthians 3:16). There is no longer any need for a woman to wear a veil/cloth-covering as long as she has long (descending) hair.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
(1) Aren’t literal English translations from the 1700-1800s better translated than modern literal translations?
Some Veil position proponents consider “older” literal Greek-English translations (meaning those from the 1700-1800s, such as the RSV and ASV) to be superior to more “recent” ones, apparently in part because the RSV and ASV translated the kalupto words to suggest veils (rather than “coverings”).
There are several problems with this reasoning. First, modern literal translators and textual scientists are clearly more knowledgeable than their predecessors, having at their fingertips access to exponentially more knowledge, including finger-tip access to many more New Testament manuscripts, and thereby better accuracy in understanding common usage of Greek words in New Testament times (for example, the KJV translators used far fewer manuscripts, and far later—the earliest being 900 years after Christ). Today, thousands of manuscripts have been discovered, catalogued, placed online, computer analyzed, etc. The same goes for lexicons; to determine definitions they can rapidly analyze how these words were employed down through time. Assuming someone out of the 1700’s, or even the 4th century, was at a greater advantage than modern scholars is to be unaware of actuality.
Ironically, the oldest literal English translation known to man—the Tyndale Bible of 1526—translated the key words of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 essentially the same as all of the most modern literal translations:
3 I wolde ye knew that Christ is the heed of every man. And the man is the womans heed. And God is Christes heed.
4 Eevery ma prayinge or prophesyinge havynge eny thynge on his heed shameth his heed.
5 Every woman that prayeth or prophisieth bare hedded dishonesteth hyr heed. For it is even all one and the very same thinge even as though she were shaven.
6 If the woman be not covered lett her also be shoren. If it be shame for a woma to be shorne or shave let her cover her heed.
7 A man ought not to cover his heed for as moche as he is the image and glory of God. The woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman but the woman of the ma.
9 Nether was the man created for ye womas sake: but the woma for the mannes sake
10 For this cause ought the woma to have power on her heed for the angels sakes.
11 Neverthelesse nether is the ma with oute the woma nether the woma with out the man in the lorde.
12 For as the woman is of the man eve so is the man by the woman: but all is of God.
13 Iudge in youre selves whether it be coly yt a woman praye vnto god bare heeded.
14 Or els doth not nature teach you that it is a shame for a man
15 if he have longe heere: and a prayse to a woman yf she have longe heere? For her heere is geven her to cover her with all.
16 If there be eny man amonge you yt lusteth to stryve let him knowe that we have no soche custome nether the congregacions of God.
A few years later, in 1611, the original KJV was very similar in word usage for the same passage:
3 But I would haue you knowe, that the head of euery man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God.
4 Euery man praying or prophecying, hauing his head couered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But euery woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head vncouered, dishonoureth her head: for that is euen all one as if she were shauen.
6 For if the woman be not couered, let her also bee shorne: but if it bee a shame for a woman to be shorne or shauen, let her be couered.
7 For a man in deede ought not to couer his head, forasmuch as hee is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman: but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to haue power on her head, because of the Angels.
11 Neuerthelesse, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man: euen so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13 Iudge in your selues, is it comely that a woman pray vnto God vncouered?
14 Doeth not euen nature it selfe teach you, that if a man haue long haire, it is a shame vnto him?
15 But if a woman haue long haire, it is a glory to her: for her haire is giuen her for a couering.
16 But if any man seeme to be contentious, we haue no such custome, neither the Churches of God.
As you can see, both the earliest and most modern literal scholars agreed that “covering”—rather than “veil”—was the correct concept for this passage. Additionally, notice that “have long hair” (rather that “let the hair grow”) was also the correct translation for conjugations of komao. And finally, note that the woman’s long hair, per the original KJV, was indeed a replacement for any man-made head covering. William Tyndale and the KJV’s original committee have been right about all these facts all along.
(2) Why weren’t veils required in the Law of Moses? Wasn’t the Headship just as valid then as it is now?
Of course, the Headship described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:3 was in place from the beginning. From the beginning, God was the Head of Christ, Christ was the Head of man, and man was the head of woman.
Yet a full 2500 years after Creation, when the Law of Moses was presented to the children of Israel, not a single commandment was found regarding the need for women to wear veils—nor cloth-coverings of any sort—during times of worship.
Doesn’t it seem odd that God would not include such a requirement in a law known for detailing numerous laws and requirements, most of which are no longer required in the Christian age?
Remember, the tradition of wearing head coverings existed as early as the Patriarchal Age (see Genesis 38:14-15). Therefore, their requirement in the New Testament (but absence in the Law of Moses) is odd. If artificial head coverings weren’t required then, in an age when the veil was a tradition of men, why would they be required in the New Testament, under the “law of freedom?
But, of course, never has God required artificial head coverings—except that downward-flowing coverings are necessarily inferred (secondarily) in the absence of long hair (1 Cor 11:15).
(3) Since the veil is a tradition of man rather than a requirement of God (except when long hair is unattainable), where then did the veil/cloth-covering tradition come from?
In only two instances does the Old Testament mention a woman wearing a veil, and both are found in the age of the Patriarchs: Rebekah and Tamar (Genesis 24:65; 38:14-15). Moses also wore a veil when speaking to God on Mt. Sinai. Solomon hinted that veils were worn in his day (Song of Solomon 1:7). No women of the New Testament were described as wearing veils, but certainly had long hair (Lk 7:38; Rv 9:8). Interestingly, the literal word for “veil,” kalumma, is mentioned only four times in the New Testament, each referring to Moses (2 Cor 3:13-16; see also v. 18; 4:3). Since God didn’t command women of the Patriarchal Age to wear veils and God didn’t command the women the Mosaic Law to wear veils, veiling/cloth-covering the head was clearly a tradition introduced by man. They were not commanded of women by God in the Patriarchal Age, Mosaic Age, or Christian Age (except in the absence of long down-flowing hair).
(4) Is it true that the LXX “always refers to covering the head by a veil/cloth-covering”?
First, in Genesis 38:14, kacah is the Hebrew word used by Moses that is translated as katekeiphte in the Greek (apparently of a close relative of katakalupto), and “cover” in English.
The first three Old Testament uses of kacah—Genesis 7:19-7:20 & 9.23)—refer to, respectively, “water-covering,” “water-covering,” “garment-covering.” As you can see, no “wrapper, shawl, veil” is implied whatsoever in these contexts. In Genesis 38:14, the kalupto word is ekallopisato, literally meaning that she “bedecked/covered [herself].” The literal LXX rendering of this verse is as follows: “And removing the garments of widowhood from herself, she [Tamar] put around [periebaleto] a light-weight wrapper/shawl/veil [theristron, from Heb. tsa-iyph=” wrapper, shawl, veil”], and bedecked herself [ekallopisato], and sat by the gates of Enaim…”
As you can see, the LXX (not to be confused with the Hebrew rendering) does not say that Tamar “covered her head with a light-weight veil.” Instead, it says that Tamar “put around (periballo=NOT A KALUPTO WORD!) herself a light-weight wrapper/shawl/veil (apparently a replacement of her garments of widowhood), and [then] bedecked [ekallopisato=NOT A KALUPTO WORD, AND DOESN’T MEAN “COVER”] herself…” Evidently what is happening here is Tamar is replacing less revealing garments with a “light-weight covering” around her body in order to advertise her body as would a prostitute. However, the LXX does not say that she covered her head with a veil. Rather, it says she “put around” herself [her body] a light-weight covering. The kalupto word does not refer to a veil whatsoever, neutralizing the Veil position argument that the LXX “always refers to covering the head by a veil/cloth-covering.”
Proceeding to Genesis 38:15, which reads as follows in the LXX (after translation from Greek to English):
And when Judas saw her, he thought her to be a harlot; for she covered [katekalupsato] her face, and he knew her not.
(Genesis 38:15)
Here’s the LXX in its original form (Greek):
15 kai idwn autan iudas edoxen autwn pornan einai katekalupsato gar to praswpon autas, kai ouk epegnw autan
Please notice how that “covered” (from katekalupsato) is a generic word, and notice that the Bible had to identify (in v. 14) what Tamar was covered with; in this case, a “veil.” So, obviously, when the word “cover” is used, the type of covering must be specified. Taking this thought back to 1 Corinthians 11, we see that Paul does not specify the type of covering until v. 15, where he indicates that a woman’s long hair is given to her “as a covering.” (Peribolaion is used in verse 15 instead of kalumma, because it encompasses more than only a veil/cloth-covering; peribolaion means, in this context, a “head-covering/head-wrapper/head-mantle/veil, etc.” Therefore, long hair is given to the woman instead of these artificial head-coverings.)
Fast forwarding to 1 Corinthians 11, New Testament translators would have been remiss had they translated katakaluptos as “veil” instead of the more generic word “covering.” “Veil” is simply an assumption; the actual definition is “covering.” Certainly, it would also not be right to say that every use of the word “covering” always implies “cloth-covering” or even a “hair covering.” But “hair covering” is believed by the vast majority of Bible readers for a very obvious reason: not only because 1 Corinthians 11 actually refers to hair in this passage six times (in its various lengths; e.g. shorn, shaven, long), but also because, as we know, the Scripture specifically states (1 Corinthians 11:15) that a woman’s long hair is indeed given to her “in the place of / instead of” a “cloth-covering.”
If Corinthians 11:3-16 is truly speaking of veils, then why did Paul (a) never use the word “veil” (kalumma), and, (b) why did Paul use peribolaion in v. 15, rather than kalumma? This is another example of inconsistency in the Veil position. It is very odd that Paul—if he indeed intended to convey to Christians that a woman must be “veiled”—would avoid the use of kalumma (“veil”) entirely in this passage. As noticed already, in the first part of the passage, Paul used a word that primarily meant “covering” and not “veil.” Why would Paul avoid using kalumma? It makes no sense, if that’s really what he had intended.
And if we assume that a veil is a woman’s covering (and remember, they say that long hair is not the woman’s head-covering), then why in v. 15 would Paul fail to use kalumma again (this time choosing peribolaion)—if indeed that’s what he was trying to convey? If “veils” were Paul’s point for this passage, Paul was doing a very poor job of communicating indeed, especially when he was quite familiar with the word kalumma, using declensions of it four times in his second writing to these very same Corinthians (see 2 Corinthians 3:13-16). Although I didn’t ask, I assume the Veil position explanation for why Paul used peribolaion is that he wanted to clarify that he was speaking about “cloth-coverings” in general, not just veils only (and not long hair either). But this, again, is a very poor way of communicating, given the fact he could simply have used verb and adjective forms of peribolaion in vs. 5, 6, 7, & 13 just as easily as the kalupto words, with far less confusion.
Although some veil advocates brush all this away as unimportant, the fact is that Paul’s total avoidance of the word kalumma or “cloth-covering” in this passage is a huge mark against the veil/cloth-covering position. Meanwhile, Paul referred, directly or indirectly, to various lengths of hair at least six times in this passage, each directly related to the “covering.” Yet, somehow, some Veil proponents entirely ignore the role of a woman’s natural long hair as a primary covering for the woman.
A LIST OF KATAKALUPTO IN THE SEPTUAGINT (LXX)…
Before listing all of the occurrences of katakalupto in the LXX, please, recall that katakalupto is a compound word created from two words: Kata (meaning “down from”) and kalupto (meaning “to cover, hide.”). Literally, it means “to cover ‘down from'” or, “to cover with a downward-directional covering.”
Because katakalupto appears in the New Testament in only 1 Corinthians 11:6-7, it’s difficult to get a grip on how this word was commonly understood in the Greek language. The good news is that katakalupto appears 23 times in the Septuagint (listed next), giving us a much better grip on its meaning. As a simple examination of the Septuagint will show shortly, the Greek verb katakalupto is translated from the Hebrew verb kasa which means, “to cover, conceal, hide.”
It is vital to understand that the Hebrew verb kasa (and therefore the Greek verb katakalupto) mean “to cover” (PRIMARILY). Therefore, both Old Testament Hebrew scholars and New Testament Greek scholars correctly translated kasa and katakalupto in our English Bibles from the infinitive “to cover.” These words DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY IMPLY A CLOTH-HEAD COVERING (or any kind of head covering, for that matter)! They neither imply what is being covered, nor what is doing the covering. In other words, katakalupto is an entirely generic and versatile word that can apply to virtually anything being “covered,” and does not imply what is doing the “covering.” These details are determined by the context. And 1 Corinthians 11 does NOT specify what the woman’s head-covering is until verse 15, where the Bible plainly states that a woman’s LONG HAIR has been given to her FOR A COVERING (peribolaion, which is a noun and refers to a head-wrap, head-covering mantle, or head-covering veil—which were commonly worn in the first century. See this example of a first century Christian woman praying in the catacombs. Click here for other examples of head-coverings.)
Thus, in 1 Corinthians 11, PAUL IS OBVIOUSLY TEACHING THAT A CHRISTIAN WOMAN DOES NOT NEED TO FOLLOW THE TRADITIONAL WEARING OF “HEAD-COVERINGS IF SHE ALREADY HAS LONG HAIR (it is implied she would need to be scripturally artificially covered if she does not have long “down-from, throughout” hair, however).”
KATA (in KATA-KALUPTO) CAN ALSO BE REPLACED WITHE OTHER PREPOSITIONS THAT CAN ALTER THE MEANING OF KALUPTO…
For example (from the LXX):
2x: epi-kalupto = epi means “over,” so lit. to over-cover. EG, water over-covering the mountains (see Gen 7.19,20; )
1x: apo-kalupto = apo means “away from,” so lit. to “away-from-cover.” EG, to remove the ark’s covering (see Gen 8.13)
1x: sun-kalupto = sun means “with,” so lit. to cover [with]. EG, covering Noah’s naked body; (see Gen 9.23)
1x: kata-kalupto = kata means “down from,” so lit. to downward-cover. EG, Tamar down-covered her face with a wrapper/shawl/veil; (see Genesis 38:15)
Note that the above kalupto verbs need nouns to identify WHAT is being covered, and often use prepositions to show HOW the noun is being covered (Ex 8.6 is an example of kalupto being used without a preposition). Note that preposition means “pre-position” and is often, in Greek, compounded therefore at the front of a verb. Here are two quick examples:
Gen 7.19 (epikalupto)
WHAT is being over-covered is the mountains,
WHAT is doing the covering is water,
HOW the mountains are being covered is “covered-over.”
Genesis 38:15 (katakalupto)
WHAT is being down-covered is Tamar’s face,
WHAT is doing the covering is apparently a wrapper/shawl/veil,
HOW her face is being covered with the wrapper/shawl/veil is “down from.”
BELOW IS EVERY OLD TESTAMENT INSTANCE OF KATAKALUPTO IN THE LXX (23 occurrences in 22 verses)…
You can check the below list out for yourself by going to (this link) (courtesy, Blue Letter Bible), which lists every instance of katakalupto in the LXX:
Important! Please remember that the Septuagint was translated from the original HEBREW Bible—into the GREEK language (commissioned by the Greek conqueror Alexander the “Great” for his Alexandrian Library, in the 3rd century BC). So, the Greek verb katakalupto was translated from the Hebrew verb, kasa (pronounced kah-SAH). Kasa means, “to cover, conceal, hide.” It is a generic word, and certainly DOES NOT imply a cloth covering of any kind! Hopefully, this list of every instance of katakalupto (shown below), which is translated directly from the Hebrew kasa, will abundantly bring home this fact. Remember, katakalupto is used in 1 Corinthians 11:5-6. Many Veil believers have been misled into thinking that it could be ONLY a “cloth covering,” but nothing could be further from the truth, as the below list should vividly prove.
. . . . . . . . . . .
Exo 26:34 NKJV – “You shall put (LXX: katakalupto; HEBREW: natan which means “to set upon” – NOT “TO VEIL”) the mercy seat upon the ark of the Testimony in the Most Holy.
Exo 29:22 NKJV – “Also you shall take the fat of the ram, the fat tail, the fat that covers (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) the entrails, the fatty lobe attached to the liver, the two kidneys and the fat on them, the right thigh (for it is a ram of consecration),
Lev 3:3 NKJV – ‘Then he shall offer from the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire to the LORD. The fat that covers (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) the entrails and all the fat that [is] on the entrails,
Lev 3:14 NKJV – ‘Then he shall offer from it his offering, as an offering made by fire to the LORD. The fat that covers (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) the entrails and all the fat that is on the entrails,
Lev 4:8 NKJV – ‘He shall take from it all the fat of the bull as the sin offering. The fat that covers (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) the entrails and all the fat which [is] on the entrails,
Lev 7:3 NKJV – ‘And he shall offer from it all its fat. The fat tail and the fat that covers (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) the entrails,
Lev 9:19 NKJV – and the fat from the bull and the ram–the fatty tail, what covers (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) the entrails and the kidneys, and the fatty lobe attached to the liver;
Num 4:5 NKJV – “When the camp prepares to journey, Aaron and his sons shall come, and they shall take down the covering (HEBREW: masak meaning “covering screen”) veil (HEBREW: paroket, primary meaning: curtain) and cover (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) the ark of the Testimony with it.
Num 22:5 NKJV – Then he sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor at Pethor, which is near the River in the land of the sons of his people, to call him, saying: “Look, a people has come from Egypt. See, they cover (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) the face of the earth, and are settling next to me!
2Ch 18:29 NKJV – And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “I will disguise myself and go into battle; but you put on (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) your robes.” So the king of Israel disguised himself, and they went into battle.
Isa 6:2 NKJV – Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) his face, with two he covered (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) his feet, and with two he flew.
Isa 11:9 NKJV – They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD As the waters cover (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) the sea.
Isa 26:21 NKJV – For behold, the LORD comes out of His place To punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity; The earth will also disclose her blood, And will no more cover (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) her slain.
Jer 46:8 NKJV – Egypt rises up like a flood, And its waters move like the rivers; And he says, ‘I will go up and cover (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) the earth, I will destroy the city and its inhabitants.’
Jer 51:42 NKJV – The sea has come up over Babylon; She is covered (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) with the multitude of its waves.
Jer 51:51 NKJV – We are ashamed because we have heard reproach. Shame has covered (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) our faces, For strangers have come into the sanctuaries of the LORD’s house.
Eze 26:10 NKJV – ‘Because of the abundance of his horses, their dust will cover (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) you; your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen, the wagons, and the chariots, when he enters your gates, as men enter a city that has been breached.
Eze 26:19 NKJV – “For thus says the Lord GOD: ‘When I make you a desolate city, like cities that are not inhabited, when I bring the deep upon you, and great waters cover (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) you,
Eze 32:7 NKJV – When [I] put out your light, I will cover (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) the heavens, and make its stars dark; I will cover (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) the sun with a cloud, And the moon shall not give her light.
Eze 38:9 NKJV – “You will ascend, coming like a storm, covering (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) the land like a cloud, you and all your troops and many peoples with you.”
Hab 2:14 NKJV – For the earth will be filled With the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, As the waters cover (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) the sea.
Gen 38:14-15 NKJV – (Tamar) took off her widow’s garments, covered (HEBREW: kasa, to cover, conceal, hide; LXX: periballo: to throw around, to put around) herself with a veil (Hebrew: saip, meaning primarily a wrapper, shawl; LXX, theristron: light-weight veil) and wrapped (alap: to cover, disguise) herself, and sat in an open place. (15) When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, because she had covered (HEBREW: kasa, to cover, conceal, hide) her face.
. . . . . . . . . . .
QUICK LIST OF KATAKALUPTO IN THE LXX (23 occurrences in 22 verses)…
…Mercy seat PUT UPON (katakalupto) the ark of the Testimony…
…Fat COVERS (katakalupto) the entrails…
…Fat COVERS (katakalupto) the entrails…
…Fat COVERS (katakalupto) the entrails…
…Fat COVERS (katakalupto) the entrails…
…Fat COVERS (katakalupto) the entrails…
…Fat COVERS (katakalupto) the entrails and kidneys…
…take down the covering (Hebrew: masak meaning “covering screen”) veil (Hebrew paroket, primary meaning: curtain) and COVER (HEBREW: kasa; LXX: katakalupto) the ark of the Testimony with it.
…a people has come from Egypt (who) COVER (katakalupto) the face of the earth
…PUT ON (katakalupto) your robes
…with two wings he COVERED (katakalupto) his face (and) with two wings he COVERED (katakalupto) his feet
…waters COVER (katakalupto) the sea.
…no more COVER (katakalupto) her slain.
…COVER (katakalupto) the earth
…Babylon is COVERED (katakalupto) with the multitude of (the sea’s) waves.
…Shame has COVERED (katakalupto) our faces
…dust will COVER (katakalupto) you
…great waters COVER (katakalupto) you
…COVER (katakalupto) the heavens, and make its stars dark…COVER (katakalupto) the sun with a cloud
…a storm COVERS (katakalupto) the land like a cloud
…waters COVER (katakalupto) the sea
…Tamar’s face COVERED (katakalupto) with a veil,..
HERE’S A BREAKDOWN OF HOW KATAKALUPTO IS USED IN THE LXX…
As stated, katakalupto used 23x in Old Testament Septuagint:
What’s being covered: face=3x/ark=1x/land=3x/water or sea=2x/feet=1x/entrails=5x /heavens=1x/people=2x/the slain=1x/
What covered with: wrapper-shawl-veil=2x/fat=5x/people/nettles=1x/wings=2x /water=3x/nothing=1x/disgrace=1x/dust=1x/darkness=1x/cloud=1x/
Please observe that in many cases, the covering is “downward directional.”
NOTE: IN THE LXX, THE WORD FOR COVERING-DOWN WITH A VEIL WAS NOT KATAKALUPTO, IT WAS KATAKALUMMA. (See Exodus 26:14; 40:19; Numbers 3:25; 4:6; Isa. 14:11)
FINAL REMINDER
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.
(1 Corinthians 11:2)
Copyright 2024-2025 (all versions)