The Head Covering Dilemma Solved
Also Available In Podcast
Copyright © 2015 TorahforWomen.com
Unless otherwise permitted in writing, all rights reserved. No portion of this book may be altered, sold, republished, copied, or rewritten in whole or in part, without the expressed written permission of the author or publisher.
Published by Shofar Productions
www.shofarproductions.com
All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), World English Bible (WEB), and Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), which are in the Public Domain.
Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™
Unless otherwise permitted in writing, all rights reserved. No portion of this book may be altered, sold, republished, copied, or rewritten in whole or in part, without the expressed written permission of the author or publisher.
Published by Shofar Productions
www.shofarproductions.com
All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, King James Version (KJV), World English Bible (WEB), and Young’s Literal Translation (YLT), which are in the Public Domain.
Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™
Preface
One of the topics we hear discussed often in Christianity and today’s Torah movement is that of head-coverings for women. We have seen men and women make it into a mandatory, commanded garment for the wife and at times even for the daughters. Is this truly a “commandment” from Yahweh, as many claim it is?
When researching head-coverings on the internet, in books, blogs and essays of various “experts" you will find a wide range of opinions on the topic. God based our sanctification not on the opinions of so-called “experts,” but on his word alone. It’s important to choose resources with solid biblical knowledge and citations in making decisions for the assembly and when teaching doctrine. More importantly, when people are questioning or teaching a biblical topic, we need to consider the totality of scripture to make a proper decision.
Interestingly, people have found it very easy to use one or two verses of scripture to prove every variation of women wearing a head-covering and have formulated whole doctrines around their teaching on one or two unclear statements. In error, people back their belief by these individual passages or faulty interpretation, then develop false teachings. Errors can range from no women wearing a head-covering because it is “a sin” to cover your head, all the way to covering being a commandment from Yahweh that women must wear as part of their religious requirement of modesty. Modesty requirements are also based on opinion and often include mandatory items: scarves over the head or other coverings, long sleeves, stockings, long dresses or skirts, and high collars. Some pastors or preachers will even go so far as to teach that it's a sin for women to wear make-up, jewelry, or adornment of any kind. All this by just taking a verse or verses and making a law for the assembly (Church).
Exploring religions from ancient Judaism to modern movements like Hebraic Roots and even including several Christian faiths, we can see that the topic of head-coverings is a very personal issue to many. However, for the sake of truth, we need to put emotion and tradition aside -focusing solely on Biblical truth. Torah For Women addresses this topic from a Biblical perspective and without man-made dogma and opinion being thrown into the mix.
In the following pages, TorahForWomen.com will discuss various aspects of the head-covering topic from as many angles as possible. We will do this in an effort to clear up any misconceptions and to make Yahweh’s teaching on head-coverings as clear as possible. We will try defining and explaining through scripture: What is a head-covering? Is it someone or something? Is it a fabric wrap, headband, or scarf? Would a lace doily suffice? Do Yahweh’s people need to wear one? If so, who should wear them - married women or single women? Is it for both? When, where, why, and how? What about children? People need to know the truth.
Our goal is not to cause discord in any home nor is it to disrupt any marriages or belief systems. This book is merely to bring scriptural clarification to what many make a dogmatic topic, in the hopes of helping believers understand Yahweh’s truth about head-coverings. We pray we are able to help bring His people more peace in their walk with Him. And we want to help people understand that true sanctification (holiness) only comes when we walk in truth - the truth of scriptures and no man-made dogma. John 17:17 KJV, states: “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.”
May you be blessed in your studies and your journey! Shalom.
When researching head-coverings on the internet, in books, blogs and essays of various “experts" you will find a wide range of opinions on the topic. God based our sanctification not on the opinions of so-called “experts,” but on his word alone. It’s important to choose resources with solid biblical knowledge and citations in making decisions for the assembly and when teaching doctrine. More importantly, when people are questioning or teaching a biblical topic, we need to consider the totality of scripture to make a proper decision.
Interestingly, people have found it very easy to use one or two verses of scripture to prove every variation of women wearing a head-covering and have formulated whole doctrines around their teaching on one or two unclear statements. In error, people back their belief by these individual passages or faulty interpretation, then develop false teachings. Errors can range from no women wearing a head-covering because it is “a sin” to cover your head, all the way to covering being a commandment from Yahweh that women must wear as part of their religious requirement of modesty. Modesty requirements are also based on opinion and often include mandatory items: scarves over the head or other coverings, long sleeves, stockings, long dresses or skirts, and high collars. Some pastors or preachers will even go so far as to teach that it's a sin for women to wear make-up, jewelry, or adornment of any kind. All this by just taking a verse or verses and making a law for the assembly (Church).
Exploring religions from ancient Judaism to modern movements like Hebraic Roots and even including several Christian faiths, we can see that the topic of head-coverings is a very personal issue to many. However, for the sake of truth, we need to put emotion and tradition aside -focusing solely on Biblical truth. Torah For Women addresses this topic from a Biblical perspective and without man-made dogma and opinion being thrown into the mix.
In the following pages, TorahForWomen.com will discuss various aspects of the head-covering topic from as many angles as possible. We will do this in an effort to clear up any misconceptions and to make Yahweh’s teaching on head-coverings as clear as possible. We will try defining and explaining through scripture: What is a head-covering? Is it someone or something? Is it a fabric wrap, headband, or scarf? Would a lace doily suffice? Do Yahweh’s people need to wear one? If so, who should wear them - married women or single women? Is it for both? When, where, why, and how? What about children? People need to know the truth.
Our goal is not to cause discord in any home nor is it to disrupt any marriages or belief systems. This book is merely to bring scriptural clarification to what many make a dogmatic topic, in the hopes of helping believers understand Yahweh’s truth about head-coverings. We pray we are able to help bring His people more peace in their walk with Him. And we want to help people understand that true sanctification (holiness) only comes when we walk in truth - the truth of scriptures and no man-made dogma. John 17:17 KJV, states: “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.”
May you be blessed in your studies and your journey! Shalom.
SECTION 1
Basic Study Principles for Studying the Head Covering
If you have been studying the scriptures for a while, you probably already know biblical study principles. Even so, it is always good to get a refresher from time-to-time. For those who are not as well-versed, this may be all-new information or something that you had questioned in the past. This section fills both those needs.
There are two very important guidelines that we need to keep in mind when studying or teaching any principle in the Bible:
1. Biblical Mandate: Don’t add to or void scriptural teachings & Test what you hear to see if it’s true.
We are commanded to not add to or take away from the Teachings of God (Torah).
Deuteronomy 4:2 is one location where it is counseled, and Proverbs 30:6 reaffirms this with, “Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.”
And
2. We need to test everything we hear or learn against what is said in the totality of scripture.
1 Thessalonians 5:21: “Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good.”
The Book of Deuteronomy is a summary of the history of the Israelites after they left Egypt, traveled in the wilderness, and were readying themselves to enter The Promised Land. Before entering The Promised Land, Yahweh felt it was important for Moses to reiterate the laws and promises He (Yahweh) gave his people at Mount Sinai. It was their chance to renew their covenants with Yahweh. In addition, the people were to make a commitment to follow the Law in their new homeland, so that they would stay close to their Elohim. They would also live and prosper in The Promised Land.
As a part of their commitment to the Law and renewal of their covenants, Deuteronomy 4:2 instructs them they are NOT to ADD to or TAKE AWAY from what Yahweh has taught them, “You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you.” This is a commandment from the Lord, which the people have been required to follow throughout all time. It still applies today, especially as we come across so many false teachings and mistranslation of the scriptures. Even more so, it applies to the errors that have lasted for so many centuries and have become entrenched customs or practices in the Lords assembly (church).
I don’t care who you are, what role you play in the church, or what platform you teach from, no matter the pulpit, through books, blogs, websites, essays or even social media, if you teach or share the Word of God then you must be careful you don’t turn your teaching into a “commandment” that adds to the Torah. Nor should you teach something that voids the Torah.
In addition, let me state: if you think you found some “new revelation” from the Old Testament books or New Testament books, it must always be compared against the totality of the scripture. Doing this helps fulfill the second on the list which comes from
1 Thessalonians 5:21, “Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good.”
There are two very important guidelines that we need to keep in mind when studying or teaching any principle in the Bible:
1. Biblical Mandate: Don’t add to or void scriptural teachings & Test what you hear to see if it’s true.
We are commanded to not add to or take away from the Teachings of God (Torah).
Deuteronomy 4:2 is one location where it is counseled, and Proverbs 30:6 reaffirms this with, “Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.”
And
2. We need to test everything we hear or learn against what is said in the totality of scripture.
1 Thessalonians 5:21: “Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good.”
The Book of Deuteronomy is a summary of the history of the Israelites after they left Egypt, traveled in the wilderness, and were readying themselves to enter The Promised Land. Before entering The Promised Land, Yahweh felt it was important for Moses to reiterate the laws and promises He (Yahweh) gave his people at Mount Sinai. It was their chance to renew their covenants with Yahweh. In addition, the people were to make a commitment to follow the Law in their new homeland, so that they would stay close to their Elohim. They would also live and prosper in The Promised Land.
As a part of their commitment to the Law and renewal of their covenants, Deuteronomy 4:2 instructs them they are NOT to ADD to or TAKE AWAY from what Yahweh has taught them, “You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you.” This is a commandment from the Lord, which the people have been required to follow throughout all time. It still applies today, especially as we come across so many false teachings and mistranslation of the scriptures. Even more so, it applies to the errors that have lasted for so many centuries and have become entrenched customs or practices in the Lords assembly (church).
I don’t care who you are, what role you play in the church, or what platform you teach from, no matter the pulpit, through books, blogs, websites, essays or even social media, if you teach or share the Word of God then you must be careful you don’t turn your teaching into a “commandment” that adds to the Torah. Nor should you teach something that voids the Torah.
In addition, let me state: if you think you found some “new revelation” from the Old Testament books or New Testament books, it must always be compared against the totality of the scripture. Doing this helps fulfill the second on the list which comes from
1 Thessalonians 5:21, “Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good.”
SECTION 2
Is It a Woman’s Fault When a Man Lusts after Her?
The first question to address about head-coverings is the "modesty argument." This man-made dogma claims a woman must wear a head-covering as one part of their made-up "commandment" for women to dress modestly. The claim is she must do this in order to stop a man from lusting. However, this makes no sense at all when the reason for this “command” to wear a head-covering is that a woman is fully responsible for leading a man to sin by the clothing that she wears, or doesn't wear. Many different religions or sects believe this teaching of strict modesty, and they make the women wear different “modesty uniforms,” depending on their definition of the term “modest.” Often the definition comes from using a more modern example based in Western culture - an American method of modest dress based in Pentecostal, certain Baptist, or Holiness movements.
At first, this particular topic can be a challenge for some to study because this is the 21st century, and we have already been through decades of women’s equality and rights. We have matured in our attitudes about what women can and cannot be or do. Women in the United States, in particular, have fought hard for everything from voting rights to equal pay for equal work. Having grown up with a mother who was more qualified than the men who worked under her supervision while she earned half their pay, I have to say I approached this at first with a bit of a worldly attitude. However, Yahweh has a way of calming you down and putting you back in a biblical perspective when you immerse yourself in the Word. Studying any topic within the word of God tends to humble you, change you and it will open your mind to see things how Yahweh sees things when you let it. That change and a godly perspective are exactly what happened when I dug deeper into this particular topic. He let me see it from his perspective instead of from an earthly minded, human perspective.
Yahweh helped me develop a deep compassion for the women who feel convicted and guilty that they are entirely responsible for causing men to lust. Many women believe that it is their full responsibility to protect all men on the planet from sinning by not misleading them in any lustful manner. I have even talked with one lovely woman, whose normal outfits used to be simple jeans and shirts which many would consider "modest." She was out shopping with her small children when she had a younger man flirt with her in a store, in spite of the fact he saw her wedding ring. This led her to believe that despite wearing modest clothing, she was the cause of his lusting after her, and therefore the reason for his sinning. Because of faulty teaching and her “perceived” contribution in causing this man to lust after her, she felt she should do all that she could to avoid “leading men astray” in the future.
Her solution was to add a head-covering, change her entire wardrobe, alter her “body language” by looking down and away when men approached, and to even alter the times which she shopped. In addition, she decided to only go out in public with her husband, so that everyone knew she was married and “off limits.” She vowed to follow these restrictions for the rest of her life because it was her "fault" this one young man, who allowed his lust to over-take him, felt it was okay to flirt with a married woman. However, is this woman the one who is responsible to keep that young man’s passions under control? Many in the church will say yes.
This kind of teaching reminds me of the “old days” when women were held responsible for a man who assaulted or raped them because of what they wore, how they talked, giggled, or smiled in a man’s presence, or what time of evening she was out and about alone. From a biblical perspective, though, which is correct? Is a woman responsible for a man’s sin of lust or is the man responsible for his own sin? Where does this teaching come from? What scripture do people use to blame women for causing men to lust?
One verse of scripture used for this doctrine is from Romans 14:13, where it states, “that no man put a stumbling block in his brother's way or an occasion for falling” (WEB version). This verse is used to tell others that if something they do causes another to sin, then they are putting a stumbling block in that other person’s path, or they are responsible if that person falters and sins. Thus, women are taught to believe that their feminine body, clothing, hair, eyes, smile, and even their voice are stumbling blocks to men as mentioned in scripture. Therefore, they are causing a man to fall into sin. This type of teaching states it is always the woman’s fault a man has “fallen” because she created a stumbling block for him. Since a woman’s femininity is such a danger to a man’s salvation as many claim it is, shouldn’t the requirement then be that a woman cover her entire body with plain, loose-fitting, full-length clothing and wear a covering over her entire face, head, neck, shoulders, etc.? Wait - wouldn’t we then be requiring all women to dress like the Islamic communities? However, where is this mode of dress written in the Torah as a law for women? It isn't.
Before we go forward in the study a note of caution is to be made here. This is not to say that women have a license to wear provocative, sensual clothing in public, or to dress like a harlot advertising her body. We still need to be sensible and conservative in our clothing choices and teach our daughters to do so as well. There needs to be a balance in what women wear, but there is no requirement in Torah for women to dress as though they are Amish or Muslim in order to protect men from their own sins.
Another place where teachers grab an example of a woman being responsible for a man’s lust is mentioned and implied in the Talmud (Berakhot 24a)1. This is common in many Jewish and Messianic communities who follow the strict oral teachings. TheTalmud states that women’s uncovered hair is as if she is completely naked, therefore making her hair a sexually erotic part of a woman. Again, these are "oral teachings," not scripture. These "laws" have been determined by the rabbis.
This particular decision is centuries old and is claimed to be loosely based on the Songs of Solomon (Songs of Songs) chapter 4, verse 1:
“Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.” Although a woman today might not feel it a compliment having her hair compared to a flock of goats, some believe this was meant to be romantic and flattering in ancient times. Because of this loving and sweet nature, it's claimed a Talmudic law was created to state that a woman’s hair is sexually attractive. Therefore, according to the rabbis, a woman’s hair must be covered so that a man is not led astray by her beautiful goat-like hair. I know it sounds weird, but that is one of the historical claims.
The odd thing about this rule of “erotic hair” is that the Talmud also mentions several other parts of a woman that are as if she is naked or sexually erotic: her “handbreadth" (part of her hand and arm), “little finger”, calf, and voice are also added to the list with the hair. While some sects or communities do require women to wear modest clothing from neck to ankle, and others may demand a woman not sing in the presence of men (because of her sensual voice), the majority of the focus seems to be on a woman’s hair. The issue now begins to appear very flexible depending on what the Rabbis decide is the most tempting part of a woman from his personal bias or what the community believes. Does this mean it could change with another meeting of the minds? Clearly, we can see that all these man-made rules are nothing more than a rabbinic creation based off twisting the scripture. However, this is not just a Jewish thing. Some Christian denominations and cults also impose strict man-made rules on women just like the rabbis, and as seen above, some women self-impose these rules as well.
So let’s take this religious logic even further. If the hair is so erotic based on what is said in the Songs of Solomon, what about the other parts of the head mentioned in the same passages? The author of these poetic phrases also complimented the woman’s eyes and other aspects of her face. Yet the rabbis did not make a law governing a covering for any other portion of the head by requiring a woman to cover her face, lips, eyes or neck. They appear to feel that only her hair is a temptation of lust. Even though all of these other features are complimented in the Songs of Solomon, this portion of the Talmud only requires a covering over the hair. Do you see how arbitrary and silly man-made rules can become?
Another point to be made is that the type of covering is flexible from family to family, community to community, assembly to assembly, and even, at times, from woman to woman. Within some of the Christian religions, such as Mennonite and Amish, it’s a simple white bonnet that is used. Some require every hair on the head be covered and unseen, while others allow head-bands, simple scarves, a doily or even wigs. Wait! Wigs? Wouldn’t a wig be the same as hair and therefore, by default, cause a man to lust after the woman? Well, not according to opinions of some people - for them, wigs are permitted because they cover the sensual, natural hair. Curious, isn't it?
When examined closely, it could be said that the type of hair covering is as varied as the grains of sand on the beach, and many rules make no sense at all because they don’t cover much of anything. It leaves you wondering how the smaller versions of “coverings”, such as the tiny hair-bands, in any way, prevent a woman’s hair from being “lustful” or “sexually erotic” as claimed. In fact, many “hair coverings” actually flatter a woman’s looks and make her more appealing to men.
I have seen several women model full-head head-coverings and look absolutely beautiful. I can imagine that a man might find these women just as attractive, possibly more-so, than if they had their hair down and uncovered. So, if a woman still can’t control a man from lusting after her while she wears a head-covering, then what is she supposed to do? If this “head-covering commandment” teaching is legitimate, as some religious communities claim, maybe we could find the answer by restating the question we asked previously, which is:
Since a woman’s femininity is such a "danger" to a man’s salvation, and wearing a head-covering still doesn’t control all men’s lust, shouldn’t the requirement be that a woman cover her entire body with plain, loose-fitting, full-length clothing and wear a covering over her entire face, head, neck, shoulders, etc. like the Muslims require?
Well, I can tell you from my studies the answer is a definite NO - because the totality of scripture does not require it.
Along with the confusion of what to use to cover a woman’s erotic hair, there are discrepancies as to who should cover their hair and at what age or point in life to begin or end. Some groups require that all females, from the time they are very young until they leave this earth, must cover their hair to avoid appearing immodest or sensual to men. Others require only married women to cover, and single women can remain uncovered so that they might attract a husband. However, isn’t a single woman being uncovered also a danger to the married men because she might lead them to lust and adultery? Do you see the confusion? A single woman may remain uncovered so she may flirt and show her glory in an effort to find a husband. Once a single girl is married, though, she must cover her head or hair because she then becomes off-limits.
Still other groups make it “law” that all females cover their “sexually erotic hair” and state that the only person ever to see the woman’s hair is her husband. This will only happen when they are alone, which means that the single woman’s hair will always be covered, even during dating. No matter which teaching you follow, it is still based on the ancient oral interpretations or traditions that a woman’s hair is “sexually erotic,” a temptation.
Confused yet? Maybe I can summarize this crazy teaching a bit for you with this simple summary:
“Women are completely responsible for the lustful feelings a man might have when he sees her femininity uncovered. Because of this danger of leading all mankind astray, some females must cover all of their hair all of the time, or some of their hair all of the time, while all females must cover some of their hair some of the time, or all of their hair some of the time, and they must use either a hair-band, scarf, wig, hat, doily, or bonnet. Again, all because man-made dogmas teach that it is the women’s fault that men lust after them and their erotic hair.”
Did you get that? Is that clearer now? Seriously, though, the only way to settle this particular argument is to look at the scriptures for an explanation of who is responsible when a person sins.
Ezekiel chapter 18 is a great place to start by studying the story of the man who is sinful and has a son who is righteous. The Lord says, “Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity?' When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live." The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.…” (KJV). The Lord plainly says that the sinner is responsible for their own sins, and the righteous are responsible for their own actions.
There are many more scriptures that share the same message. Here are just a few:
- James 1:14-16 WEB: “But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust, when it has conceived, bears sin; and the sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death. Don't be deceived, my beloved brothers.” Here we can see the whole process: temptation, lust, bears sin, sin acted upon which brings consequences. It is clear that sin is the result of lust, and the lust of the individual is what draws them into sin. The consequence of sin is death. Not once in these verses is blame laid upon someone else for causing the lust. The blame and full responsibility lies with the one who lusts, gives in to that lust, and allows it to grow. For example, a woman might flirt with your husband at work, but if your husband begins to lust after her and yield to the lustful thought then commits adultery, is your husband blameless of his sins he committed? Joseph was seduced by an aggressive woman, and he literally ran from the situation in order not to get involved in the sin. Why can’t men today follow this example and run out away from the situation when they feel tempted by a woman? (See Genesis Chapter 39 for details.)
- Galatians 6:7 WEB version shows the law of sowing and reaping is closely related to personal responsibility. “Don't be deceived. God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap...” Wouldn’t this then tell you that if a man looks at a woman’s hair, and he sows lustful feelings about her in his mind that he then reaps the consequences of his own lust? The lord does not say, “For whatsoever a man soweth, the woman accepts responsibility and reaps.”
- Isaiah 3:10-11 WEB: “Tell the righteous "Good!" For they shall eat the fruit of their deeds. Woe to the wicked! Disaster is upon them; for the deeds of his hands will be paid back to him.” A reward for the righteous is laid out here as the fruit of their actions, while “woe” is laid out for the wicked, the sinner. Again, Yahweh did not say, “Woe to the righteous woman for disaster is upon her because of the deeds of wicked men”.
- Romans 14:12 KJV tells us exactly who will give account for their sins in the end: “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God”. A similar statement is made in 2 Corinthians 5:10: “For we must all be revealed before the judgment seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” No matter which translation we read, The Word does not say that we will be able to stand before Yahweh and claim that it was another’s fault that we fell into the sin of lust. No man will be able to stand, point at a woman, and say, “But Yahweh - that woman in the grocery store wore her hair down and did not cover her head, so it was her fault I had those lustful feelings!” Sorry men, that won’t work. We will all have to give account for ourselves, good and bad.
Deuteronomy 24:16 WEB: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”
For the sake of balance, we need to say that women are also responsible for their lustful feelings, but that is another book to be written. However, we can clearly see when we truly study the word of Yahweh, that there is no justification for the argument: women and their hair are responsible for the lust men may feel when they see women without a head-covering. The word of God makes it clear that a person, man or woman, is responsible for any lustful feelings that they have inside of them. Each person will answer for their own lusts, their own desires, and their own sins. A man should take a close look inside his mind and soul to find the flaw that is present. He should discover what is leading him down the path of lust and sin. People need to recognize and repent, rather than blame another for their own sins.
Yeshua had clear counsel on this topic in Matthew 5:27-30 WEB: “You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery;' but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna. If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and throw it away from you…”
Did you notice that Yeshua told men to take action to get control of themselves? Yeshua never blamed women for the actions of lusting men. He never told the women to put a cloth on their head or to wrap their face so that a man wouldn’t need to pluck out his eye after looking and lusting after the woman. 1 Corinthians 6:18 tells us to “Flee sexual immorality! . . .” While Ephesians 5:3 tells us that there should not even be a hint of sexual immorality found among us. What other warnings are written in scripture that we must heed? How about you must put to death your lust (all forms of lust) according to Colossians 3:5? Also, 2 Timothy 2:22 says we are to flee from youthful lust. Even if a woman wickedly seduces a man to sin with her, as in the story of Joseph, Yahweh will make a way of escape and empower the man to resist the temptation and lust. However, the man needs to yield to Yahweh instead of yielding to the lustful thoughts and seduction. How do we know this? Proverbs Chapters 2, 5, 6, and 7 demonstrate this and teach us that this is how you must react to sin and temptation.
If a man continues to claim after studying scriptures that a woman is responsible for his lust, maybe a more modern comment will drive the point home as to who is responsible. It is reported that during an Israeli cabinet meeting, the ministers were discussing a large increase in assaults on women. It was suggested, that a curfew be placed on women to help stop these attacks. Prime Minister Golda Meir was quoted as replying: “But it's the men who are attacking the women. If there's to be a curfew, let the men stay home, not the women.”2
Perhaps between this secular example and our look into the scriptures, we can now put to rest this crazy dogma that women are responsible for the sin of lustful men. Let’s stop putting the burden on women to wear a head-covering to prevent men from sinning. Let’s teach men instead to control their own passions and avoid sin.
At first, this particular topic can be a challenge for some to study because this is the 21st century, and we have already been through decades of women’s equality and rights. We have matured in our attitudes about what women can and cannot be or do. Women in the United States, in particular, have fought hard for everything from voting rights to equal pay for equal work. Having grown up with a mother who was more qualified than the men who worked under her supervision while she earned half their pay, I have to say I approached this at first with a bit of a worldly attitude. However, Yahweh has a way of calming you down and putting you back in a biblical perspective when you immerse yourself in the Word. Studying any topic within the word of God tends to humble you, change you and it will open your mind to see things how Yahweh sees things when you let it. That change and a godly perspective are exactly what happened when I dug deeper into this particular topic. He let me see it from his perspective instead of from an earthly minded, human perspective.
Yahweh helped me develop a deep compassion for the women who feel convicted and guilty that they are entirely responsible for causing men to lust. Many women believe that it is their full responsibility to protect all men on the planet from sinning by not misleading them in any lustful manner. I have even talked with one lovely woman, whose normal outfits used to be simple jeans and shirts which many would consider "modest." She was out shopping with her small children when she had a younger man flirt with her in a store, in spite of the fact he saw her wedding ring. This led her to believe that despite wearing modest clothing, she was the cause of his lusting after her, and therefore the reason for his sinning. Because of faulty teaching and her “perceived” contribution in causing this man to lust after her, she felt she should do all that she could to avoid “leading men astray” in the future.
Her solution was to add a head-covering, change her entire wardrobe, alter her “body language” by looking down and away when men approached, and to even alter the times which she shopped. In addition, she decided to only go out in public with her husband, so that everyone knew she was married and “off limits.” She vowed to follow these restrictions for the rest of her life because it was her "fault" this one young man, who allowed his lust to over-take him, felt it was okay to flirt with a married woman. However, is this woman the one who is responsible to keep that young man’s passions under control? Many in the church will say yes.
This kind of teaching reminds me of the “old days” when women were held responsible for a man who assaulted or raped them because of what they wore, how they talked, giggled, or smiled in a man’s presence, or what time of evening she was out and about alone. From a biblical perspective, though, which is correct? Is a woman responsible for a man’s sin of lust or is the man responsible for his own sin? Where does this teaching come from? What scripture do people use to blame women for causing men to lust?
One verse of scripture used for this doctrine is from Romans 14:13, where it states, “that no man put a stumbling block in his brother's way or an occasion for falling” (WEB version). This verse is used to tell others that if something they do causes another to sin, then they are putting a stumbling block in that other person’s path, or they are responsible if that person falters and sins. Thus, women are taught to believe that their feminine body, clothing, hair, eyes, smile, and even their voice are stumbling blocks to men as mentioned in scripture. Therefore, they are causing a man to fall into sin. This type of teaching states it is always the woman’s fault a man has “fallen” because she created a stumbling block for him. Since a woman’s femininity is such a danger to a man’s salvation as many claim it is, shouldn’t the requirement then be that a woman cover her entire body with plain, loose-fitting, full-length clothing and wear a covering over her entire face, head, neck, shoulders, etc.? Wait - wouldn’t we then be requiring all women to dress like the Islamic communities? However, where is this mode of dress written in the Torah as a law for women? It isn't.
Before we go forward in the study a note of caution is to be made here. This is not to say that women have a license to wear provocative, sensual clothing in public, or to dress like a harlot advertising her body. We still need to be sensible and conservative in our clothing choices and teach our daughters to do so as well. There needs to be a balance in what women wear, but there is no requirement in Torah for women to dress as though they are Amish or Muslim in order to protect men from their own sins.
Another place where teachers grab an example of a woman being responsible for a man’s lust is mentioned and implied in the Talmud (Berakhot 24a)1. This is common in many Jewish and Messianic communities who follow the strict oral teachings. TheTalmud states that women’s uncovered hair is as if she is completely naked, therefore making her hair a sexually erotic part of a woman. Again, these are "oral teachings," not scripture. These "laws" have been determined by the rabbis.
This particular decision is centuries old and is claimed to be loosely based on the Songs of Solomon (Songs of Songs) chapter 4, verse 1:
“Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.” Although a woman today might not feel it a compliment having her hair compared to a flock of goats, some believe this was meant to be romantic and flattering in ancient times. Because of this loving and sweet nature, it's claimed a Talmudic law was created to state that a woman’s hair is sexually attractive. Therefore, according to the rabbis, a woman’s hair must be covered so that a man is not led astray by her beautiful goat-like hair. I know it sounds weird, but that is one of the historical claims.
The odd thing about this rule of “erotic hair” is that the Talmud also mentions several other parts of a woman that are as if she is naked or sexually erotic: her “handbreadth" (part of her hand and arm), “little finger”, calf, and voice are also added to the list with the hair. While some sects or communities do require women to wear modest clothing from neck to ankle, and others may demand a woman not sing in the presence of men (because of her sensual voice), the majority of the focus seems to be on a woman’s hair. The issue now begins to appear very flexible depending on what the Rabbis decide is the most tempting part of a woman from his personal bias or what the community believes. Does this mean it could change with another meeting of the minds? Clearly, we can see that all these man-made rules are nothing more than a rabbinic creation based off twisting the scripture. However, this is not just a Jewish thing. Some Christian denominations and cults also impose strict man-made rules on women just like the rabbis, and as seen above, some women self-impose these rules as well.
So let’s take this religious logic even further. If the hair is so erotic based on what is said in the Songs of Solomon, what about the other parts of the head mentioned in the same passages? The author of these poetic phrases also complimented the woman’s eyes and other aspects of her face. Yet the rabbis did not make a law governing a covering for any other portion of the head by requiring a woman to cover her face, lips, eyes or neck. They appear to feel that only her hair is a temptation of lust. Even though all of these other features are complimented in the Songs of Solomon, this portion of the Talmud only requires a covering over the hair. Do you see how arbitrary and silly man-made rules can become?
Another point to be made is that the type of covering is flexible from family to family, community to community, assembly to assembly, and even, at times, from woman to woman. Within some of the Christian religions, such as Mennonite and Amish, it’s a simple white bonnet that is used. Some require every hair on the head be covered and unseen, while others allow head-bands, simple scarves, a doily or even wigs. Wait! Wigs? Wouldn’t a wig be the same as hair and therefore, by default, cause a man to lust after the woman? Well, not according to opinions of some people - for them, wigs are permitted because they cover the sensual, natural hair. Curious, isn't it?
When examined closely, it could be said that the type of hair covering is as varied as the grains of sand on the beach, and many rules make no sense at all because they don’t cover much of anything. It leaves you wondering how the smaller versions of “coverings”, such as the tiny hair-bands, in any way, prevent a woman’s hair from being “lustful” or “sexually erotic” as claimed. In fact, many “hair coverings” actually flatter a woman’s looks and make her more appealing to men.
I have seen several women model full-head head-coverings and look absolutely beautiful. I can imagine that a man might find these women just as attractive, possibly more-so, than if they had their hair down and uncovered. So, if a woman still can’t control a man from lusting after her while she wears a head-covering, then what is she supposed to do? If this “head-covering commandment” teaching is legitimate, as some religious communities claim, maybe we could find the answer by restating the question we asked previously, which is:
Since a woman’s femininity is such a "danger" to a man’s salvation, and wearing a head-covering still doesn’t control all men’s lust, shouldn’t the requirement be that a woman cover her entire body with plain, loose-fitting, full-length clothing and wear a covering over her entire face, head, neck, shoulders, etc. like the Muslims require?
Well, I can tell you from my studies the answer is a definite NO - because the totality of scripture does not require it.
Along with the confusion of what to use to cover a woman’s erotic hair, there are discrepancies as to who should cover their hair and at what age or point in life to begin or end. Some groups require that all females, from the time they are very young until they leave this earth, must cover their hair to avoid appearing immodest or sensual to men. Others require only married women to cover, and single women can remain uncovered so that they might attract a husband. However, isn’t a single woman being uncovered also a danger to the married men because she might lead them to lust and adultery? Do you see the confusion? A single woman may remain uncovered so she may flirt and show her glory in an effort to find a husband. Once a single girl is married, though, she must cover her head or hair because she then becomes off-limits.
Still other groups make it “law” that all females cover their “sexually erotic hair” and state that the only person ever to see the woman’s hair is her husband. This will only happen when they are alone, which means that the single woman’s hair will always be covered, even during dating. No matter which teaching you follow, it is still based on the ancient oral interpretations or traditions that a woman’s hair is “sexually erotic,” a temptation.
Confused yet? Maybe I can summarize this crazy teaching a bit for you with this simple summary:
“Women are completely responsible for the lustful feelings a man might have when he sees her femininity uncovered. Because of this danger of leading all mankind astray, some females must cover all of their hair all of the time, or some of their hair all of the time, while all females must cover some of their hair some of the time, or all of their hair some of the time, and they must use either a hair-band, scarf, wig, hat, doily, or bonnet. Again, all because man-made dogmas teach that it is the women’s fault that men lust after them and their erotic hair.”
Did you get that? Is that clearer now? Seriously, though, the only way to settle this particular argument is to look at the scriptures for an explanation of who is responsible when a person sins.
Ezekiel chapter 18 is a great place to start by studying the story of the man who is sinful and has a son who is righteous. The Lord says, “Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity?' When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live." The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.…” (KJV). The Lord plainly says that the sinner is responsible for their own sins, and the righteous are responsible for their own actions.
There are many more scriptures that share the same message. Here are just a few:
- James 1:14-16 WEB: “But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed. Then the lust, when it has conceived, bears sin; and the sin, when it is full grown, brings forth death. Don't be deceived, my beloved brothers.” Here we can see the whole process: temptation, lust, bears sin, sin acted upon which brings consequences. It is clear that sin is the result of lust, and the lust of the individual is what draws them into sin. The consequence of sin is death. Not once in these verses is blame laid upon someone else for causing the lust. The blame and full responsibility lies with the one who lusts, gives in to that lust, and allows it to grow. For example, a woman might flirt with your husband at work, but if your husband begins to lust after her and yield to the lustful thought then commits adultery, is your husband blameless of his sins he committed? Joseph was seduced by an aggressive woman, and he literally ran from the situation in order not to get involved in the sin. Why can’t men today follow this example and run out away from the situation when they feel tempted by a woman? (See Genesis Chapter 39 for details.)
- Galatians 6:7 WEB version shows the law of sowing and reaping is closely related to personal responsibility. “Don't be deceived. God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap...” Wouldn’t this then tell you that if a man looks at a woman’s hair, and he sows lustful feelings about her in his mind that he then reaps the consequences of his own lust? The lord does not say, “For whatsoever a man soweth, the woman accepts responsibility and reaps.”
- Isaiah 3:10-11 WEB: “Tell the righteous "Good!" For they shall eat the fruit of their deeds. Woe to the wicked! Disaster is upon them; for the deeds of his hands will be paid back to him.” A reward for the righteous is laid out here as the fruit of their actions, while “woe” is laid out for the wicked, the sinner. Again, Yahweh did not say, “Woe to the righteous woman for disaster is upon her because of the deeds of wicked men”.
- Romans 14:12 KJV tells us exactly who will give account for their sins in the end: “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God”. A similar statement is made in 2 Corinthians 5:10: “For we must all be revealed before the judgment seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” No matter which translation we read, The Word does not say that we will be able to stand before Yahweh and claim that it was another’s fault that we fell into the sin of lust. No man will be able to stand, point at a woman, and say, “But Yahweh - that woman in the grocery store wore her hair down and did not cover her head, so it was her fault I had those lustful feelings!” Sorry men, that won’t work. We will all have to give account for ourselves, good and bad.
Deuteronomy 24:16 WEB: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”
For the sake of balance, we need to say that women are also responsible for their lustful feelings, but that is another book to be written. However, we can clearly see when we truly study the word of Yahweh, that there is no justification for the argument: women and their hair are responsible for the lust men may feel when they see women without a head-covering. The word of God makes it clear that a person, man or woman, is responsible for any lustful feelings that they have inside of them. Each person will answer for their own lusts, their own desires, and their own sins. A man should take a close look inside his mind and soul to find the flaw that is present. He should discover what is leading him down the path of lust and sin. People need to recognize and repent, rather than blame another for their own sins.
Yeshua had clear counsel on this topic in Matthew 5:27-30 WEB: “You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery;' but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna. If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and throw it away from you…”
Did you notice that Yeshua told men to take action to get control of themselves? Yeshua never blamed women for the actions of lusting men. He never told the women to put a cloth on their head or to wrap their face so that a man wouldn’t need to pluck out his eye after looking and lusting after the woman. 1 Corinthians 6:18 tells us to “Flee sexual immorality! . . .” While Ephesians 5:3 tells us that there should not even be a hint of sexual immorality found among us. What other warnings are written in scripture that we must heed? How about you must put to death your lust (all forms of lust) according to Colossians 3:5? Also, 2 Timothy 2:22 says we are to flee from youthful lust. Even if a woman wickedly seduces a man to sin with her, as in the story of Joseph, Yahweh will make a way of escape and empower the man to resist the temptation and lust. However, the man needs to yield to Yahweh instead of yielding to the lustful thoughts and seduction. How do we know this? Proverbs Chapters 2, 5, 6, and 7 demonstrate this and teach us that this is how you must react to sin and temptation.
If a man continues to claim after studying scriptures that a woman is responsible for his lust, maybe a more modern comment will drive the point home as to who is responsible. It is reported that during an Israeli cabinet meeting, the ministers were discussing a large increase in assaults on women. It was suggested, that a curfew be placed on women to help stop these attacks. Prime Minister Golda Meir was quoted as replying: “But it's the men who are attacking the women. If there's to be a curfew, let the men stay home, not the women.”2
Perhaps between this secular example and our look into the scriptures, we can now put to rest this crazy dogma that women are responsible for the sin of lustful men. Let’s stop putting the burden on women to wear a head-covering to prevent men from sinning. Let’s teach men instead to control their own passions and avoid sin.
SECTION 3
No Mitzvot About Head-Coverings in the 613
In addition to the Talmud, some believe and teach that Yahweh has made a commandment that women must wear a head-covering because it is in the list of Mitzvot, which are the 613 rules followed by various Jewish Sects. It is claimed that this list is taken directly from the laws, rules, and counsel that are contained in the Old Testament. The list of “613 commandments” covers laws for men, for women, for all members of the assembly, for solely the Kohanim (Priest), for the Feasts and the Sabbaths, as well as those that come from the original ten commandments (Exodus 20).
One would think that with a head-covering being such an important practice and an alleged key to the salvation of men, it would definitely be mentioned somewhere in the 613 Mitzvot. Yet to the surprise of many it is nowhere to be found. I have personally searched all 613 Mitzvot, and cannot find the head-covering anywhere in it. There is mention in the 613 laws of the commandment about clothing that is found in Deuteronomy 22, which tells mankind not to be as, or wear clothing designed for the opposite sex. They also mention not to mix linen and wool fabrics. Yet there is not one mention of a head-covering ever being a commandment for women. Not one mention of a head-covering in the 613 Mitzvot, which are supposed to be a list of every commandment Yahweh has given.
All you will find in historic writings are rabbis mentioning how the Talmud states a woman’s hair is lustful, and then make it a requirement to wear a covering. However, rabbis did not determine it important enough of a commandment to ensure it is in the list of 613 Mitzvot. Some will claim that it is, yet this is in error. It is also not found as a commandment in the first five books of the Old Testament (The Torah), nor is it in the Prophets. It is very clear it is simply a man-made rule similar to other man-made rules the Pharisees created in the times of Yeshua, rather than a law of Yahweh.
One would think that with a head-covering being such an important practice and an alleged key to the salvation of men, it would definitely be mentioned somewhere in the 613 Mitzvot. Yet to the surprise of many it is nowhere to be found. I have personally searched all 613 Mitzvot, and cannot find the head-covering anywhere in it. There is mention in the 613 laws of the commandment about clothing that is found in Deuteronomy 22, which tells mankind not to be as, or wear clothing designed for the opposite sex. They also mention not to mix linen and wool fabrics. Yet there is not one mention of a head-covering ever being a commandment for women. Not one mention of a head-covering in the 613 Mitzvot, which are supposed to be a list of every commandment Yahweh has given.
All you will find in historic writings are rabbis mentioning how the Talmud states a woman’s hair is lustful, and then make it a requirement to wear a covering. However, rabbis did not determine it important enough of a commandment to ensure it is in the list of 613 Mitzvot. Some will claim that it is, yet this is in error. It is also not found as a commandment in the first five books of the Old Testament (The Torah), nor is it in the Prophets. It is very clear it is simply a man-made rule similar to other man-made rules the Pharisees created in the times of Yeshua, rather than a law of Yahweh.
SECTION 4
The Sotah Ritual or Bitter Waters in Numbers 5
So far, we made it clear who is responsible for another’s sin, or rather who isn’t, and we see head-coverings are not mentioned as a law in the Torah or the 613 Mitzvot. So now we can discuss what some also claim in error to be the first scriptural evidence of a woman actually wearing a head-covering.
This error is one that is held dear in Jewish tradition, amongst some Messianics, and with many in the Hebrew Roots movement as the common defense for making a woman cover her hair at all times, except in the presence of her husband. What is this error? It’s their misunderstanding about the Sotah Ritual or Adultery Test found in Numbers 5:11-31, with much of the focus being on verse 18.
Moses is told by the Lord that a ritual is needed by which a woman may be tested to see if she has committed adultery against her husband. Yahweh went into specific instructions as to how the ritual was to be performed by the priest, after the husband brings the accused wife to the priest, along with several offerings listed in Numbers 5:15 KJV: “The man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of memorial, a reminder of iniquity.” The husband, who has made his accusations to the priest, will now need to await the judgment of the Lord upon his wife.
The priest must then present the woman before Yahweh in the Tabernacle to test her innocence or her guilt. He does this by taking the wife to stand before the Lord where she is to drink from the cup of bitter waters. The priest was to mix these bitter waters from holy water in an earthen vessel and some dust from the floor of the tabernacle, placing the dust into the water.
After counsel from the priest about the consequences these bitter waters will have if she has been with a man other than her husband, she will then be required to drink from the vessel. If she becomes ill with a swollen belly, and her thigh (loin) wastes away, then she is convicted of adultery. Her guilt and curses will be written in a book, and she will be a curse amongst her people. If she is innocent, because the bitter waters did not react in her body proving she committed adultery, then she shall be free to return home to bear children with her spouse.
Now the part that brings people to the conclusion that women must cover their hair is during the portion of the ceremony where the priest brings the wife before the Lord in verse 18. Depending on which translation one reads from, you can get several different interpretations of the words used to describe what the priest does with the woman’s hair:
Numbers 5:18
KJV “And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, . . .”
NIV “After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair . . .”
WEB “The priest shall set the woman before Yahweh, and let the hair of the woman's head go loose, . . .”
Many rely on the King James Version to state that the priest had to UN-cover the woman’s head or hair, in their mind it must have been covered initially; therefore, their conclusion is that it must be an ancient modesty requirement for a woman to have their hair covered. They reason the priest would not have had to “uncover her head” if it weren’t covered to begin with, right? Yet other translations show that he had to “let down” or “loosen her hair”, not uncover it.
The literal translation of this portion from Hebrew to English would say, “and shall set the priest the woman before the Lord and uncover the head of the woman." The Hebrew word being used in the verse is written וּפָרַע֙ and is transliterated to be pronounced “upara”, with a long “u” at the beginning. The word comes from the root word “para” whose definition is “avenge, let go, let loose, unbind, bare, uncover. . .” When compared to other uses in the scriptures that use this root word in other books, such as Exodus and Leviticus, the various forms of the word have been translated to mean let go, unrestrained, let loose, bare, uncover, shall uncover.
Therefore, there are two options we are left with:
1) The priest let the woman’s hair down, loosened it, unbound it; let it go because she had it pinned or pulled up in some way. In this way she would be presented with her hair (her glory) hanging down long before the Lord;
- Or -
2) the priest UN-bound her hair from her alleged head-covering letting her hair (glory) barren, again, hanging down long before going in front of the Lord in prayer.
The verse is not 100% specific either way. However, we can be confident that, whether a woman had her hair made-up or bound in a head-covering, either way the priest had to let the women’s hair loose to go before Yahweh. Since he let her hair hang down long to appear before the Lord how can we now claim that a woman must do the opposite? People use this example to prove women must have hair covered to go before Yahweh in prayer or when prophesying - this again is confustion and is completely unsupported by the scripture of the Sotah Ritual. Therefore, to make a claim that it is a commandment or requirement for women to wear a head-covering based on the Sotah ritual would be adding to the Torah.
It is clear the Sotah ritual shows the woman goes before the Lord without an artificial head-covering. She goes before him with her natural long hair loose and down, which is contrary to the teaching that a woman must have her head covered if she goes before Yahweh. Therefore, a woman having her uncovered long hair down when a woman prays is more accurately verified by the Torah than requiring a woman to have her head covered when she prays. Head-coverings are just not supported here in scriptures.
Another claim from this ritual is that the woman must have had her hair covered at first by commandment and her hair was then uncovered to reveal her immodesty and nakedness, thus shaming her before Yahweh. In addition, the priest was required to strip her of her clothing, further revealing her immodesty and shaming her. Although this error may be the teaching of oral law, man-made dogma, and tradition, it again is not supported by scripture that this is the case.
Take into consideration that the woman is only accused of sin, but has not been found guilty of any sin of adultery because she would not have drunk the bitter waters as yet. Why would a woman need to be shamed, or punished before she has even been judged?
Also, let’s consider something from the head-covering advocates perspective. If (as stated in previous sections) it is believed by many that it is a sin for a man to look on a woman who is uncovered or naked without a head-covering because it would cause a man to lust, and therefore sin, then why would it be a part of a sacred ritual before Yahweh for the priest to see another man’s wife uncovered and naked, possibly luring priests into lust and sin? This is contrary to their own teaching.
This man-made dogma is full of contradiction which creates confusion, perverts justice and shows Yahweh to have a certain character trait that he does not have, which is that he will condemn the innocent before they are judged. Yahweh is just, and he is not a God of confusion.
Proverbs 17:15 WEB: “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to Yahweh.”
Exodus 23:7 WEB: “Keep far from a false charge, and don't kill the innocent and righteous: for I will not justify the wicked.”
We can’t twist scripture to justify a favorite man-made tradition that is not supported by scripture. The Sotah Ritual actually refutes head-coverings rather than support it. Some will still twist this ritual and scripture to support their error and burden women with their man-made rules contrary to the desires of Yahweh.
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Proverbs 30:6 WEB
This error is one that is held dear in Jewish tradition, amongst some Messianics, and with many in the Hebrew Roots movement as the common defense for making a woman cover her hair at all times, except in the presence of her husband. What is this error? It’s their misunderstanding about the Sotah Ritual or Adultery Test found in Numbers 5:11-31, with much of the focus being on verse 18.
Moses is told by the Lord that a ritual is needed by which a woman may be tested to see if she has committed adultery against her husband. Yahweh went into specific instructions as to how the ritual was to be performed by the priest, after the husband brings the accused wife to the priest, along with several offerings listed in Numbers 5:15 KJV: “The man shall then bring his wife to the priest, and shall bring as an offering for her one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal; he shall not pour oil on it nor put frankincense on it, for it is a grain offering of jealousy, a grain offering of memorial, a reminder of iniquity.” The husband, who has made his accusations to the priest, will now need to await the judgment of the Lord upon his wife.
The priest must then present the woman before Yahweh in the Tabernacle to test her innocence or her guilt. He does this by taking the wife to stand before the Lord where she is to drink from the cup of bitter waters. The priest was to mix these bitter waters from holy water in an earthen vessel and some dust from the floor of the tabernacle, placing the dust into the water.
After counsel from the priest about the consequences these bitter waters will have if she has been with a man other than her husband, she will then be required to drink from the vessel. If she becomes ill with a swollen belly, and her thigh (loin) wastes away, then she is convicted of adultery. Her guilt and curses will be written in a book, and she will be a curse amongst her people. If she is innocent, because the bitter waters did not react in her body proving she committed adultery, then she shall be free to return home to bear children with her spouse.
Now the part that brings people to the conclusion that women must cover their hair is during the portion of the ceremony where the priest brings the wife before the Lord in verse 18. Depending on which translation one reads from, you can get several different interpretations of the words used to describe what the priest does with the woman’s hair:
Numbers 5:18
KJV “And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, . . .”
NIV “After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair . . .”
WEB “The priest shall set the woman before Yahweh, and let the hair of the woman's head go loose, . . .”
Many rely on the King James Version to state that the priest had to UN-cover the woman’s head or hair, in their mind it must have been covered initially; therefore, their conclusion is that it must be an ancient modesty requirement for a woman to have their hair covered. They reason the priest would not have had to “uncover her head” if it weren’t covered to begin with, right? Yet other translations show that he had to “let down” or “loosen her hair”, not uncover it.
The literal translation of this portion from Hebrew to English would say, “and shall set the priest the woman before the Lord and uncover the head of the woman." The Hebrew word being used in the verse is written וּפָרַע֙ and is transliterated to be pronounced “upara”, with a long “u” at the beginning. The word comes from the root word “para” whose definition is “avenge, let go, let loose, unbind, bare, uncover. . .” When compared to other uses in the scriptures that use this root word in other books, such as Exodus and Leviticus, the various forms of the word have been translated to mean let go, unrestrained, let loose, bare, uncover, shall uncover.
Therefore, there are two options we are left with:
1) The priest let the woman’s hair down, loosened it, unbound it; let it go because she had it pinned or pulled up in some way. In this way she would be presented with her hair (her glory) hanging down long before the Lord;
- Or -
2) the priest UN-bound her hair from her alleged head-covering letting her hair (glory) barren, again, hanging down long before going in front of the Lord in prayer.
The verse is not 100% specific either way. However, we can be confident that, whether a woman had her hair made-up or bound in a head-covering, either way the priest had to let the women’s hair loose to go before Yahweh. Since he let her hair hang down long to appear before the Lord how can we now claim that a woman must do the opposite? People use this example to prove women must have hair covered to go before Yahweh in prayer or when prophesying - this again is confustion and is completely unsupported by the scripture of the Sotah Ritual. Therefore, to make a claim that it is a commandment or requirement for women to wear a head-covering based on the Sotah ritual would be adding to the Torah.
It is clear the Sotah ritual shows the woman goes before the Lord without an artificial head-covering. She goes before him with her natural long hair loose and down, which is contrary to the teaching that a woman must have her head covered if she goes before Yahweh. Therefore, a woman having her uncovered long hair down when a woman prays is more accurately verified by the Torah than requiring a woman to have her head covered when she prays. Head-coverings are just not supported here in scriptures.
Another claim from this ritual is that the woman must have had her hair covered at first by commandment and her hair was then uncovered to reveal her immodesty and nakedness, thus shaming her before Yahweh. In addition, the priest was required to strip her of her clothing, further revealing her immodesty and shaming her. Although this error may be the teaching of oral law, man-made dogma, and tradition, it again is not supported by scripture that this is the case.
Take into consideration that the woman is only accused of sin, but has not been found guilty of any sin of adultery because she would not have drunk the bitter waters as yet. Why would a woman need to be shamed, or punished before she has even been judged?
Also, let’s consider something from the head-covering advocates perspective. If (as stated in previous sections) it is believed by many that it is a sin for a man to look on a woman who is uncovered or naked without a head-covering because it would cause a man to lust, and therefore sin, then why would it be a part of a sacred ritual before Yahweh for the priest to see another man’s wife uncovered and naked, possibly luring priests into lust and sin? This is contrary to their own teaching.
This man-made dogma is full of contradiction which creates confusion, perverts justice and shows Yahweh to have a certain character trait that he does not have, which is that he will condemn the innocent before they are judged. Yahweh is just, and he is not a God of confusion.
Proverbs 17:15 WEB: “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to Yahweh.”
Exodus 23:7 WEB: “Keep far from a false charge, and don't kill the innocent and righteous: for I will not justify the wicked.”
We can’t twist scripture to justify a favorite man-made tradition that is not supported by scripture. The Sotah Ritual actually refutes head-coverings rather than support it. Some will still twist this ritual and scripture to support their error and burden women with their man-made rules contrary to the desires of Yahweh.
“Don't you add to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” Proverbs 30:6 WEB
SECTION 5
Does Yahweh Command Head-Coverings in 1 Corinthians 11
1 Corinthians chapter 11 is a widely disputed chapter amongst all religions and denominations because it lays out the order of God, Yeshua, man and woman as well as discusses the hot topic of the head-covering. Verses 1 through 16 and sometimes verse 17 are used to prove that women in assemblies (churches) are required to wear a head-covering when praying and prophesying.
Before we can address the actual contents of Chapter 11 where it talks about the head-covering, let’s first take a minute to talk about translating. As time has gone by since the original texts were written, they have gone through multiple translations and interpretations. Because of this, words have often been changed to help the reader make more sense to the modern mindset. When trying to understand the real meaning of things we often need to go as far back as possible to get the most accurate information available about the words that are used and the sentence structure. In addition, our modern meanings may be quite different from what the traditional English words may have meant. For this, we often trace the English word as well as Hebrew or Greek for more accuracy, and we suggest you do as well.
Another thing that people don’t always realize about the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments the divisions were placed where scribes thought they might fit. Chapters and verses are not the same as the original inspired word. The separations between verses, chapters, and order of books were decided for various reasons. In some areas, it is obvious that the scribes got it wrong and that the “next” chapter or verse could easily go with the same topic that came before. This is what needs to be pointed out about 1 Corinthians 11, where two separate topics are discussed: Head-coverings and the Lord’s Supper.
If you look carefully at the Chapter, many scholars believe and teach that verse 1 actually fits more accurately at the very end of Chapter 10. Thus starting Chapter 11 at verse 2, you will see the text flows much more clearly through the topic of head-coverings. What isn’t often noticed is that the modern translators and editors (our modern scribes) separate verses 17, 18, and 19 from the topic of the head-coverings discussion. They put the topic with the verses that discuss observance of the Lord’s Supper. But did you ever notice that verses 17-19 don’t seem to fit well with verses 20-34? They seem to be a bit out of place or a little disjointed.
This can be made clearer when you take away the topic headings and verse number and just read Chapter 11 from beginning to end, allowing it to flow naturally. Read it for yourself and allow it to come together like Paul originally wrote the letter without chapter and verses, or topic headings. Remember, chapter and verses are not a part of the original inspired text and are just man-made divisions.
What needs to be understood here is that Paul is NOT giving a new commandment for women to wear head-coverings; he is also NOT enforcing an old commandment that somehow slipped through the cracks or was being ignored. Some would use verse 17 to prove that Paul is teaching a commandment that needs to be followed, but the word translated as “command” is
παραγγέλλων (transliteration: parangellon).
This word is more accurately interpreted as “instruction, message and teaching.” The Greek word “parangellon” is a word that more accurately means Paul is giving a counsel or teaching to the assembly. If he wanted to state that it was an actual commandment from Yahweh, then he would have used a stronger word.
Paul could have likely used ἐντολὴν (Transliteration: entolen), which means “injunction, order, requirement, commandment.” Can you see that the second word (entolen), used several times in the New Testament to explain the requirements of Yahweh, has a much stronger impact and meaning than the word Paul uses (parangellon) which is just a word of counsel?
Paul makes it very clear that there is no custom amongst the church or assemblies for women to wear a fabric head-covering when praying, prophesying, or any other time of the day or night. He says that if there is contention about this issue, there is no justification for that contention because women have their glory, their covering, which is their long hair. Plus there was no Old Testament scripture Paul could have used to justify a head-covering commandment. We already have seen that in our study.
Let’s take a moment to confirm WHAT Paul says a head-covering is. We can do this best by starting near the end of the head-covering passage which discusses men and women covering their heads during prayer and prophecy. In 1 Corinthians 11:15, Paul specifically states “For long hair is given to her (all women) as a covering.” How can we be sure that Paul means that “hair” is a head-covering? He explains right above verse 15 that it is the “physis” of things that if a man has long hair it disgraces him, dishonors him, while it is a woman’s glory when she has long hair. “Physis” means the natural, the origin, underlying make-up of someone or something. Where does our natural, underlying, male or female make-up come from? It comes from Yahweh who made us the way that we are either male or female, not both contrary to some popular opinions.
Where people make the mistake and believe a woman must be covered is in verses 4 through 7, which says:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaved {shaven}. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn; but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved {shaven}, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.”
For these verses, we have to understand some of the words often misinterpreted.
Of the man it is said, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head COVERED (kata)”, yet this word translated as “covered” can more accurately be defined or translated as “down from.” Therefore, every man praying or prophesying having anything DOWN FROM his head dishonors his head. What could a man have hanging down from his head? Long hair, of course, which Paul explains is not a natural way for men to wear their hair.
The woman, on the other hand, in Verse 5 states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (Akatakalypto) dishonoreth her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaved {shaven}”. The word akatakalypto is a compound word made up of the same word describing a man, “kata”; the letter “a” which is a negative prefix (alpha); and “kalypto”, which is often translated as being a veil, but more accurately means to cover, keep secret or hidden, covered up. Therefore, a more accurate translation would be: “every woman that prayeth and prophesieth with not anything hanging down from her head.”
It must be noted here that in these verses regarding the woman, Paul is addressing the woman’s HEAD and not her face. At this point, many might be crying out, “SEE! THERE! That tells us Paul is saying a woman must have something hanging down from her head when praying and prophesying!” However, this is where they need to go back to what we discussed at the beginning of this chapter and state again that Paul makes it clear that a woman’s head-covering, is not an artificial cloth, but it’s her hair. Therefore, there is no commandment in 1 Corinthians 11 telling women that they must wear a fabric head-covering hanging down from their head.
We know from reading in previous chapters in 1st Corinthians, Paul rebuked the people of Corinth because they were having issues with pagan traditions and behaviors creeping into their lives. He mentioned perversions and immoralities that were being practiced by the church members that had been reported to him by someone of the house of Chloe who felt it should be addressed by Paul.
Corinthians 1:11, “For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.”
If you remove the division between the verses and read with continued flow through 1 Corinthians 11:19, you will find that Paul says so much more that we need to pay attention to. He says, “. . . I don’t praise you, that you come together not for the better but for the worse. For First of all when you come together in the assembly, I hear that divisions exist among you. . . For there also must be factions among you, that those who are approved may be revealed among you.”
Paul recognizes that there is division in the Church of Corinth, and he does not want to give the impression that he approves of any side in the arguing. He sees they are supposed to be meeting together to teach what Jesus (Yeshua) taught, yet instead, they are meeting together as different sects or factions, which we often call "cliques" these days. They are bickering over issues such as whether or not women must cover their heads when praying and prophesying. He is trying to teach them that their arguments and attitude goes far beyond head-coverings. The church is being over-run by a spirit of contention, and people are fighting over issues which, in some cases, don’t even exist in the teachings of Yeshua.
It is very clear what Paul is trying to do in 1 Corinthians if you examine it correctly in proper context. There is so much division in the church of Corinth that they need to be corrected. By this point in his letter, Paul has had to address sexual immorality, incest, boasting, lawsuits, food sacrificed to idols, as well as many other issues brought to his attention. He deals with the church with much love and compassion. Yet deals harshly when needed, too, in an effort to pull them back into following the Gospel of Yeshua. Paul has addressed many of the pagan traditions that were openly running rampant in the community of Corinth and even uses the history of Israel to encourage them to follow a path of righteousness.
It is presumed by so many, that Paul is rebuking women in 1 Corinthians 11 who are out of line by not wearing their head-coverings in the church. However, the opposite is true because, in reality, he is rebuking the church for commanding women to wear head-coverings when the church does NOT have any custom or law requiring a woman to be covered by something other than her natural long hair.
As a final word on this topic, Paul asks the people of Corinth to be sensible when he says to them in Verse 13, “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”(KJV)
With all of the information that Paul has given to the Corinthian church, we can clearly see he intended for women to know they were already blessed with their natural covering—their long hair. Paul went counter to the faction in the church that demanded head-coverings. He declared that nothing further needed to be added to a woman’s head in order to present themselves before Yahweh in either prayer or prophesying.
Paul also did not want this to cause any further controversy or disputes amongst the assembly. Remember, Paul said in verse 2 that he wrote to the people of Corinth and told them to “hold firm the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.” He does not say the church is to hold firm to the traditions that they brought into the church but to hold to the traditions he taught them. Then Paul finishes this topic by specifically warning against contention about the issue. He reminds the contentious person needs to remember there is no tradition or custom regarding head-coverings for women in the entire assembly (church) of Yahweh. (1 Corinthians 11:16)
It is important to take a good hard look at all that Paul writes in every chapter in 1 Corinthians. Do this without considering the chapter and verse numbers, and without separating them all into individual topics. Doing this you can see that the entire letter flows together to express one great point: the church is experiencing way too much paganism and local tradition creeping in which is causing tremendous contention. The church of Corinth is being affected by these things as are all the members of the assembly.
1 Corinthians could easily be applied to Yahweh’s church today as we allow so many different ideas to lead us astray from true meanings and purposes of his word. Many of the same subjects Paul warns of and counsels against in 1st Corinthians are creeping into the assembly today. This includes the man-made command for head-coverings to be worn by women, which has no scriptural support.
Before we can address the actual contents of Chapter 11 where it talks about the head-covering, let’s first take a minute to talk about translating. As time has gone by since the original texts were written, they have gone through multiple translations and interpretations. Because of this, words have often been changed to help the reader make more sense to the modern mindset. When trying to understand the real meaning of things we often need to go as far back as possible to get the most accurate information available about the words that are used and the sentence structure. In addition, our modern meanings may be quite different from what the traditional English words may have meant. For this, we often trace the English word as well as Hebrew or Greek for more accuracy, and we suggest you do as well.
Another thing that people don’t always realize about the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments the divisions were placed where scribes thought they might fit. Chapters and verses are not the same as the original inspired word. The separations between verses, chapters, and order of books were decided for various reasons. In some areas, it is obvious that the scribes got it wrong and that the “next” chapter or verse could easily go with the same topic that came before. This is what needs to be pointed out about 1 Corinthians 11, where two separate topics are discussed: Head-coverings and the Lord’s Supper.
If you look carefully at the Chapter, many scholars believe and teach that verse 1 actually fits more accurately at the very end of Chapter 10. Thus starting Chapter 11 at verse 2, you will see the text flows much more clearly through the topic of head-coverings. What isn’t often noticed is that the modern translators and editors (our modern scribes) separate verses 17, 18, and 19 from the topic of the head-coverings discussion. They put the topic with the verses that discuss observance of the Lord’s Supper. But did you ever notice that verses 17-19 don’t seem to fit well with verses 20-34? They seem to be a bit out of place or a little disjointed.
This can be made clearer when you take away the topic headings and verse number and just read Chapter 11 from beginning to end, allowing it to flow naturally. Read it for yourself and allow it to come together like Paul originally wrote the letter without chapter and verses, or topic headings. Remember, chapter and verses are not a part of the original inspired text and are just man-made divisions.
What needs to be understood here is that Paul is NOT giving a new commandment for women to wear head-coverings; he is also NOT enforcing an old commandment that somehow slipped through the cracks or was being ignored. Some would use verse 17 to prove that Paul is teaching a commandment that needs to be followed, but the word translated as “command” is
παραγγέλλων (transliteration: parangellon).
This word is more accurately interpreted as “instruction, message and teaching.” The Greek word “parangellon” is a word that more accurately means Paul is giving a counsel or teaching to the assembly. If he wanted to state that it was an actual commandment from Yahweh, then he would have used a stronger word.
Paul could have likely used ἐντολὴν (Transliteration: entolen), which means “injunction, order, requirement, commandment.” Can you see that the second word (entolen), used several times in the New Testament to explain the requirements of Yahweh, has a much stronger impact and meaning than the word Paul uses (parangellon) which is just a word of counsel?
Paul makes it very clear that there is no custom amongst the church or assemblies for women to wear a fabric head-covering when praying, prophesying, or any other time of the day or night. He says that if there is contention about this issue, there is no justification for that contention because women have their glory, their covering, which is their long hair. Plus there was no Old Testament scripture Paul could have used to justify a head-covering commandment. We already have seen that in our study.
Let’s take a moment to confirm WHAT Paul says a head-covering is. We can do this best by starting near the end of the head-covering passage which discusses men and women covering their heads during prayer and prophecy. In 1 Corinthians 11:15, Paul specifically states “For long hair is given to her (all women) as a covering.” How can we be sure that Paul means that “hair” is a head-covering? He explains right above verse 15 that it is the “physis” of things that if a man has long hair it disgraces him, dishonors him, while it is a woman’s glory when she has long hair. “Physis” means the natural, the origin, underlying make-up of someone or something. Where does our natural, underlying, male or female make-up come from? It comes from Yahweh who made us the way that we are either male or female, not both contrary to some popular opinions.
Where people make the mistake and believe a woman must be covered is in verses 4 through 7, which says:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaved {shaven}. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn; but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved {shaven}, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.”
For these verses, we have to understand some of the words often misinterpreted.
Of the man it is said, “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head COVERED (kata)”, yet this word translated as “covered” can more accurately be defined or translated as “down from.” Therefore, every man praying or prophesying having anything DOWN FROM his head dishonors his head. What could a man have hanging down from his head? Long hair, of course, which Paul explains is not a natural way for men to wear their hair.
The woman, on the other hand, in Verse 5 states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (Akatakalypto) dishonoreth her head; for that is even all one as if she were shaved {shaven}”. The word akatakalypto is a compound word made up of the same word describing a man, “kata”; the letter “a” which is a negative prefix (alpha); and “kalypto”, which is often translated as being a veil, but more accurately means to cover, keep secret or hidden, covered up. Therefore, a more accurate translation would be: “every woman that prayeth and prophesieth with not anything hanging down from her head.”
It must be noted here that in these verses regarding the woman, Paul is addressing the woman’s HEAD and not her face. At this point, many might be crying out, “SEE! THERE! That tells us Paul is saying a woman must have something hanging down from her head when praying and prophesying!” However, this is where they need to go back to what we discussed at the beginning of this chapter and state again that Paul makes it clear that a woman’s head-covering, is not an artificial cloth, but it’s her hair. Therefore, there is no commandment in 1 Corinthians 11 telling women that they must wear a fabric head-covering hanging down from their head.
We know from reading in previous chapters in 1st Corinthians, Paul rebuked the people of Corinth because they were having issues with pagan traditions and behaviors creeping into their lives. He mentioned perversions and immoralities that were being practiced by the church members that had been reported to him by someone of the house of Chloe who felt it should be addressed by Paul.
Corinthians 1:11, “For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.”
If you remove the division between the verses and read with continued flow through 1 Corinthians 11:19, you will find that Paul says so much more that we need to pay attention to. He says, “. . . I don’t praise you, that you come together not for the better but for the worse. For First of all when you come together in the assembly, I hear that divisions exist among you. . . For there also must be factions among you, that those who are approved may be revealed among you.”
Paul recognizes that there is division in the Church of Corinth, and he does not want to give the impression that he approves of any side in the arguing. He sees they are supposed to be meeting together to teach what Jesus (Yeshua) taught, yet instead, they are meeting together as different sects or factions, which we often call "cliques" these days. They are bickering over issues such as whether or not women must cover their heads when praying and prophesying. He is trying to teach them that their arguments and attitude goes far beyond head-coverings. The church is being over-run by a spirit of contention, and people are fighting over issues which, in some cases, don’t even exist in the teachings of Yeshua.
It is very clear what Paul is trying to do in 1 Corinthians if you examine it correctly in proper context. There is so much division in the church of Corinth that they need to be corrected. By this point in his letter, Paul has had to address sexual immorality, incest, boasting, lawsuits, food sacrificed to idols, as well as many other issues brought to his attention. He deals with the church with much love and compassion. Yet deals harshly when needed, too, in an effort to pull them back into following the Gospel of Yeshua. Paul has addressed many of the pagan traditions that were openly running rampant in the community of Corinth and even uses the history of Israel to encourage them to follow a path of righteousness.
It is presumed by so many, that Paul is rebuking women in 1 Corinthians 11 who are out of line by not wearing their head-coverings in the church. However, the opposite is true because, in reality, he is rebuking the church for commanding women to wear head-coverings when the church does NOT have any custom or law requiring a woman to be covered by something other than her natural long hair.
As a final word on this topic, Paul asks the people of Corinth to be sensible when he says to them in Verse 13, “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”(KJV)
With all of the information that Paul has given to the Corinthian church, we can clearly see he intended for women to know they were already blessed with their natural covering—their long hair. Paul went counter to the faction in the church that demanded head-coverings. He declared that nothing further needed to be added to a woman’s head in order to present themselves before Yahweh in either prayer or prophesying.
Paul also did not want this to cause any further controversy or disputes amongst the assembly. Remember, Paul said in verse 2 that he wrote to the people of Corinth and told them to “hold firm the traditions, even as I delivered them to you.” He does not say the church is to hold firm to the traditions that they brought into the church but to hold to the traditions he taught them. Then Paul finishes this topic by specifically warning against contention about the issue. He reminds the contentious person needs to remember there is no tradition or custom regarding head-coverings for women in the entire assembly (church) of Yahweh. (1 Corinthians 11:16)
It is important to take a good hard look at all that Paul writes in every chapter in 1 Corinthians. Do this without considering the chapter and verse numbers, and without separating them all into individual topics. Doing this you can see that the entire letter flows together to express one great point: the church is experiencing way too much paganism and local tradition creeping in which is causing tremendous contention. The church of Corinth is being affected by these things as are all the members of the assembly.
1 Corinthians could easily be applied to Yahweh’s church today as we allow so many different ideas to lead us astray from true meanings and purposes of his word. Many of the same subjects Paul warns of and counsels against in 1st Corinthians are creeping into the assembly today. This includes the man-made command for head-coverings to be worn by women, which has no scriptural support.
SECTION 6
Should a Woman Wear a Head Covering At All Times?
Next we need to address the teaching that some assemblies and families claim it is required women must wear a head-covering at all times. Their reasoning is found in both 1 Thessalonians and Ephesians where the followers of Yeshua are told to pray “without ceasing” and to “pray always” (1 Thessalonians 5:17 and Ephesians 6:18). Remember this from previously: the wrong interpretation has been made by many from the Sotah ritual and 1 Corinthians 11 commanding a woman to cover her head while praying. The next flawed step happens when we are told to "pray always" in certain verses and people draw the wrong conclusion that a woman must now keep her head covered always.
Thessalonians 5:17 says “pray without ceasing” while Ephesians 6:18 counsels that we are to be “Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit.” Does this truly mean a woman’s head must be covered 24/7? People mix, match and twist verses to come to the conclusion they want the scriptures to say. In this case, we can mix, match and twist the scriptures to say that if we are to remain in prayer at all times, praying continually, and a woman is commanded to wear a head-covering when praying, then a woman must be covered continually, day and night, ready for prayer at all times. Therefore, people who embrace this scriptural error state a woman must never remove her head-covering so that a woman is always ready for prayer and prophesying.
This already goes against the conclusions made by some earlier. Some teach that she may remove the covering for her husband to see her hair, but what of those times when she is to be ready to always be in prayer with her husband? Is she to be constantly taking it off, then on, then off, then on, swapping back and forth between ready for prayer and allowing her husband to see her glory? Yes, this sounds ridiculous, and we recognize that. Yet we use this example to show how confusing man-made doctrines can be. Again, Yahweh is not a god of confusion, and clearly this is confusion.
However, if we try to play this "pray and cover always" teaching to further conclusion, we can show it has more consequence than many recognize. If we use this logic to prove that a woman must always wear a head-covering, then we must apply the same logic and interpretation to men. In 1st Corinthians chapter 11, Paul also says that a MAN must be UN-covered while praying and prophesying. Uh-oh. If a woman is to be covered always, shouldn’t this scripture then be interpreted to say a man must never, ever wear a hat or head-covering because he is to be in prayer always, without ceasing? Think about it: if you claim women must wear a head-covering continuously to be ready to pray at all times without ceasing, then you must also claim a man can never wear a hat (covering) so he can be ready to pray at all times. Sorry, but in order to be scripturally accurate and fair according to logic that means no hats for the guys - ever.
We could go on and on applying this same NON-Torah based interpretation to say since Ephesians 6:18 to “pray always. . . .in the spirit” then we must assume we are never to pray again in the language that we are accustomed to speaking or in the language of a country or a congregation that we are teaching in. We are only to pray "in the spirit."
We can falsely proclaim that every time we pray it must be in the spirit only, including in the assembly or congregation, and then go even further adding into the mix the verse in 1 Corinthians 4:28 where it states: “But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the assembly, and let him speak to himself, and to God.”(WEB Version) Therefore, when we put these two scriptures together, we could come to even more flawed conclusions to demand that men are now required to remain silent in church, unless someone is there to interpret what they say. To continue this pattern is called hyper-literal interpretation which is a flawed approach to interpreting the scriptures.
The bottom line we are trying to show you is that this is what happens when we manipulate scriptures and bring the logic of error to a full conclusion. This is how easy it is to take a scripture or two to the extreme, so that a new law and doctrine are created by twisting scriptures together, in order to make them fit into a desired thought pattern. By coming up with your own opinions about an issue and then twisting scriptures to make your opinions “scriptural” you will almost always fall in error. The sad part is you will probably go around teaching your unscriptural errors and make others fall as well.
This is what happens with many religious systems that put a yoke of burden on people Yahweh never intended for people to suffer. This is what man-made religious codes and rules do to people. They put them in bondage with man-made, unscriptural rules.
“…woe! Because ye burden men [women] with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves with one of your fingers do not touch the burdens.”Luke 11:46 YLT
“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.” 1 John 5:3 WEB
Thessalonians 5:17 says “pray without ceasing” while Ephesians 6:18 counsels that we are to be “Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit.” Does this truly mean a woman’s head must be covered 24/7? People mix, match and twist verses to come to the conclusion they want the scriptures to say. In this case, we can mix, match and twist the scriptures to say that if we are to remain in prayer at all times, praying continually, and a woman is commanded to wear a head-covering when praying, then a woman must be covered continually, day and night, ready for prayer at all times. Therefore, people who embrace this scriptural error state a woman must never remove her head-covering so that a woman is always ready for prayer and prophesying.
This already goes against the conclusions made by some earlier. Some teach that she may remove the covering for her husband to see her hair, but what of those times when she is to be ready to always be in prayer with her husband? Is she to be constantly taking it off, then on, then off, then on, swapping back and forth between ready for prayer and allowing her husband to see her glory? Yes, this sounds ridiculous, and we recognize that. Yet we use this example to show how confusing man-made doctrines can be. Again, Yahweh is not a god of confusion, and clearly this is confusion.
However, if we try to play this "pray and cover always" teaching to further conclusion, we can show it has more consequence than many recognize. If we use this logic to prove that a woman must always wear a head-covering, then we must apply the same logic and interpretation to men. In 1st Corinthians chapter 11, Paul also says that a MAN must be UN-covered while praying and prophesying. Uh-oh. If a woman is to be covered always, shouldn’t this scripture then be interpreted to say a man must never, ever wear a hat or head-covering because he is to be in prayer always, without ceasing? Think about it: if you claim women must wear a head-covering continuously to be ready to pray at all times without ceasing, then you must also claim a man can never wear a hat (covering) so he can be ready to pray at all times. Sorry, but in order to be scripturally accurate and fair according to logic that means no hats for the guys - ever.
We could go on and on applying this same NON-Torah based interpretation to say since Ephesians 6:18 to “pray always. . . .in the spirit” then we must assume we are never to pray again in the language that we are accustomed to speaking or in the language of a country or a congregation that we are teaching in. We are only to pray "in the spirit."
We can falsely proclaim that every time we pray it must be in the spirit only, including in the assembly or congregation, and then go even further adding into the mix the verse in 1 Corinthians 4:28 where it states: “But if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the assembly, and let him speak to himself, and to God.”(WEB Version) Therefore, when we put these two scriptures together, we could come to even more flawed conclusions to demand that men are now required to remain silent in church, unless someone is there to interpret what they say. To continue this pattern is called hyper-literal interpretation which is a flawed approach to interpreting the scriptures.
The bottom line we are trying to show you is that this is what happens when we manipulate scriptures and bring the logic of error to a full conclusion. This is how easy it is to take a scripture or two to the extreme, so that a new law and doctrine are created by twisting scriptures together, in order to make them fit into a desired thought pattern. By coming up with your own opinions about an issue and then twisting scriptures to make your opinions “scriptural” you will almost always fall in error. The sad part is you will probably go around teaching your unscriptural errors and make others fall as well.
This is what happens with many religious systems that put a yoke of burden on people Yahweh never intended for people to suffer. This is what man-made religious codes and rules do to people. They put them in bondage with man-made, unscriptural rules.
“…woe! Because ye burden men [women] with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves with one of your fingers do not touch the burdens.”Luke 11:46 YLT
“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.” 1 John 5:3 WEB
SECTION 7
Have You Placed Your Head Covering Above Yahweh?
A word of caution must be made here before we conclude. We are warned not to make anything our idol:
John 5:21 KJV: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.”
Judges 10:14 WEB: “. . .Go and cry to the gods which you have chosen. Let them save you in the time of your distress!"
Isaiah 46:7 WEB: “They bear it on the shoulder, they carry it, and set it in its place, and it stands, from its place it shall not move: yes, one may cry to it, yet it cannot answer, nor save him out of his trouble.”
This verse is speaking of a golden idol that was made by men and carried around. But the message is clear and applicable, that we can’t create idols and attribute power to it that it doesn’t have.
Many women who wear head-coverings strongly believe they are unworthy to go before Yahweh in prayer unless they wear cloth on their head. Women have been heard to say that they feel more righteous, powerful, holy, or more “connected” to Yahweh when they wear their head-covering. Are you making a cloth head-covering an idol?
Ask yourself some questions:
- Do I place special “powers” in my head-coverings?
- Do I feel the head-covering provides me with some “mystical connection”?
- Do I feel less of a woman or less worthy if I go before Yahweh without cloth on my head?
This is a good time to take full inventory of your reasons for wearing a head-covering:
- Do you find some form of identity for yourself in wearing one?
- Does the thought of being without your head-covering bring you disharmony, make you fearful or concerned that you are sinning?
- Do you feel that God will not speak to you, or that you won’t hear him unless you are wearing a covering while praying?
If you said yes to any of these questions, then you are probably giving way too much power to that cloth on your head. You are saying God is not able to hear me unless I have a cloth on my head and therefore, belittle God’s power and character.
According to a dictionary definition, an idol is any person, object, or activity that we give a higher priority, or power to than our own relationship with Yahweh or even a higher priority than Yahweh himself. It can be anything at all in our lives that we put first, adore, exalt, regard, honor, love or give glory to more than we do Abba (the Father).
Often times we see typical idols being such things as money, expensive cars, fancy homes, a job title and success, a nice boat; while others may worship statues, figurines, plaques, or a church building. We don’t often call the less obvious things that we put above Him an idol. Those things can often be the “smaller” things like our appetite, jewelry, a bad habit, our vanity, clothing, or even your head-covering.
Women have been heard to say that they cannot start their day without a head-covering. They say they would not be seen in public without their head-covering, or even that they cannot go before Yahweh without it. Their head-covering guides and governs their lives in many ways more than the Torah itself does. This is when a sister in the Lord should take some time to prayerfully examine her relationship with her head-covering, and more importantly, her relationship with Yahweh.
Are you using your head-covering in the same way that Catholics use Mary, as your doorway or your intercessor between you and Yahweh? Is your head-covering replacing the work of Yeshua which gave you access to the Father? Are you saying his work was not worthy enough to give you access to the Father? Or that you need a man-made head-covering to have the right to stand before the Father?
“According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord; in whom we have boldness and access in confidence through our faith in him.” Ephesians 3:11-12 WEB
“For through him, we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.” Ephesians 2:18 WEB
“Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have the confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus” Hebrews 10:19 NIV
“Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God.” Romans 5:2 NIV
“Let us then approach God's throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.” Hebrews 4:16 NIV
No piece of cloth on your head will EVER replace what Yeshua did, so it is blasphemy to say a woman cannot pray before the throne of God unless she has a cloth on her head. Yeshua paid the ultimate price so that women can stand boldly before the throne of the Father. It’s not because of what she did, and it’s not because of the cloth on her head, but it’s all about what Yeshua did for her.
After reading these scriptures and seeing what Yeshua did for you, do you still feel incomplete without your head-covering? Does head-covering still hold that much power over you? Can you not wear it for one week without fear? If you can’t live or pray without that cloth on your head then you may need deliverance from the spirit of religion and legalism. You will need to repent of this blasphemy of denying the power of Yeshua.
Don’t make your head-covering an idol. Some say this is not possible - yet scriptures even prove that a woman can make articles of clothing (including head-coverings) an idol or a spirit of pride. In Isaiah chapter 3, Yahweh talks about how the women of Zion had exalted themselves, their finery and head-coverings above Him. He then places punishment on the women (Verse 17-24): “Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion; the Lord will make their scalps bald. In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: . . . headbands . . . veils, the headdresses . . . and sashes,. . . the capes and cloaks (hoods), . . . Instead of well-dressed hair, baldness;” Sores on the head and baldness (plucked out hair) sound like horrible, difficult consequences for placing a fabric covering above Yahweh in one’s worship and praise. It shows He will not tolerate this idol of cloth.
John 5:21 KJV: “Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.”
Judges 10:14 WEB: “. . .Go and cry to the gods which you have chosen. Let them save you in the time of your distress!"
Isaiah 46:7 WEB: “They bear it on the shoulder, they carry it, and set it in its place, and it stands, from its place it shall not move: yes, one may cry to it, yet it cannot answer, nor save him out of his trouble.”
This verse is speaking of a golden idol that was made by men and carried around. But the message is clear and applicable, that we can’t create idols and attribute power to it that it doesn’t have.
Many women who wear head-coverings strongly believe they are unworthy to go before Yahweh in prayer unless they wear cloth on their head. Women have been heard to say that they feel more righteous, powerful, holy, or more “connected” to Yahweh when they wear their head-covering. Are you making a cloth head-covering an idol?
Ask yourself some questions:
- Do I place special “powers” in my head-coverings?
- Do I feel the head-covering provides me with some “mystical connection”?
- Do I feel less of a woman or less worthy if I go before Yahweh without cloth on my head?
This is a good time to take full inventory of your reasons for wearing a head-covering:
- Do you find some form of identity for yourself in wearing one?
- Does the thought of being without your head-covering bring you disharmony, make you fearful or concerned that you are sinning?
- Do you feel that God will not speak to you, or that you won’t hear him unless you are wearing a covering while praying?
If you said yes to any of these questions, then you are probably giving way too much power to that cloth on your head. You are saying God is not able to hear me unless I have a cloth on my head and therefore, belittle God’s power and character.
According to a dictionary definition, an idol is any person, object, or activity that we give a higher priority, or power to than our own relationship with Yahweh or even a higher priority than Yahweh himself. It can be anything at all in our lives that we put first, adore, exalt, regard, honor, love or give glory to more than we do Abba (the Father).
Often times we see typical idols being such things as money, expensive cars, fancy homes, a job title and success, a nice boat; while others may worship statues, figurines, plaques, or a church building. We don’t often call the less obvious things that we put above Him an idol. Those things can often be the “smaller” things like our appetite, jewelry, a bad habit, our vanity, clothing, or even your head-covering.
Women have been heard to say that they cannot start their day without a head-covering. They say they would not be seen in public without their head-covering, or even that they cannot go before Yahweh without it. Their head-covering guides and governs their lives in many ways more than the Torah itself does. This is when a sister in the Lord should take some time to prayerfully examine her relationship with her head-covering, and more importantly, her relationship with Yahweh.
Are you using your head-covering in the same way that Catholics use Mary, as your doorway or your intercessor between you and Yahweh? Is your head-covering replacing the work of Yeshua which gave you access to the Father? Are you saying his work was not worthy enough to give you access to the Father? Or that you need a man-made head-covering to have the right to stand before the Father?
“According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord; in whom we have boldness and access in confidence through our faith in him.” Ephesians 3:11-12 WEB
“For through him, we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father.” Ephesians 2:18 WEB
“Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have the confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus” Hebrews 10:19 NIV
“Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God.” Romans 5:2 NIV
“Let us then approach God's throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.” Hebrews 4:16 NIV
No piece of cloth on your head will EVER replace what Yeshua did, so it is blasphemy to say a woman cannot pray before the throne of God unless she has a cloth on her head. Yeshua paid the ultimate price so that women can stand boldly before the throne of the Father. It’s not because of what she did, and it’s not because of the cloth on her head, but it’s all about what Yeshua did for her.
After reading these scriptures and seeing what Yeshua did for you, do you still feel incomplete without your head-covering? Does head-covering still hold that much power over you? Can you not wear it for one week without fear? If you can’t live or pray without that cloth on your head then you may need deliverance from the spirit of religion and legalism. You will need to repent of this blasphemy of denying the power of Yeshua.
Don’t make your head-covering an idol. Some say this is not possible - yet scriptures even prove that a woman can make articles of clothing (including head-coverings) an idol or a spirit of pride. In Isaiah chapter 3, Yahweh talks about how the women of Zion had exalted themselves, their finery and head-coverings above Him. He then places punishment on the women (Verse 17-24): “Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion; the Lord will make their scalps bald. In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: . . . headbands . . . veils, the headdresses . . . and sashes,. . . the capes and cloaks (hoods), . . . Instead of well-dressed hair, baldness;” Sores on the head and baldness (plucked out hair) sound like horrible, difficult consequences for placing a fabric covering above Yahweh in one’s worship and praise. It shows He will not tolerate this idol of cloth.
IN CONCLUSION
Going into writing this book, we made every attempt to start the task with very open minds and hearts. Through this study of the scriptures, we have demonstrated that there is no commandment for a woman to wear a head-covering when she prays, is prophesying, or in public. There is no commandment to wear a head-covering at all. On the flip side, there is also no commandment forbidding a head-covering. Honestly, there is no commandment or requirement either way.
There does, however, appear to be several writings and even a warning from Paul about a woman who prays or is prophesying, in private or in public with her head “UN-covered”, which does not mean she has no cloth cover on her head, but it does means, for the sake of definition, having her hair done up in something similar to an elaborate updo, adorned with gold, pearls and the like. There is also concern expressed about a woman being shaven or “shorn” and perhaps trying to look like a man.
A woman’s hair is her glory, a gift from Yahweh to show her as being different from a man. It is a thing of beauty and is to be respected and treated as such. A woman’s hair shows to the world and the angels that she is a woman, and no one should confuse a woman for a man because the woman cuts her hair short in the style of a man.
Is her hair an item to be worshipped? No, of course not. Is her hair to be a thing of pride? Definitely not. It is not to be our idol any more than a tallit, crucifix, statue or a person is to be made into an idol. A woman’s hair is to be respected as her God-given glory, a symbol of her womanhood, and a gift from Yahweh. It’s a symbol of who God has made her to be.
It must be said, as well, that we must stop this erroneous teaching that it is a woman’s fault when a man makes her an object of his lust because of her hair or clothing. By continuing to teach this false doctrine, women of all walks - sisters, daughters and wives are being taught that they are responsible by default of womanhood, for a man’s inability to control himself. Men need to get control of their lust because it is not from God.
1 John 2:16: “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life is not of the Father, but is of the world.”
Whether through her hair, singing voice, or her clothing it does not matter, mankind cannot continue to blame women for the sins of other men. The lie cannot be perpetuated it must end in this generation. It is our hope that everyone who reads this book will also test our teachings. We ask you to search your hearts and the scriptures in prayer so that you can experience the truth in the Word.
Some will question if this means that we are telling all women who cover that they must remove their cloth head-coverings this very instant and never wear them again. No, not at all. Our study clearly shows that there is simply no scriptural evidence for any of the false claims that demand a woman wear head-coverings. Are we saying that it is a sin to wear one while you pray, or while prophesying? Of course not. However, Torah For Women will stand firm on the fact that if a woman chooses to wear some form of head-covering, it must be understood that there is NO COMMANDMENT from Yahweh for it. It should not be taught that women MUST wear a head-covering, and the head-covering should never be placed above Yahweh in reverence or respect.
There may be times when a woman feels “moved” to do something different than others do and may feel led to wear a head-covering. Would we tell her that she is wrong in her inspirations or in her revelations? No. That is between her and Yahweh, and between her and her husband. However, her personal impression can never be interpreted as a command from Yahweh and she should never teach it to other women as such.
It is our hope that we have been able to provide enough scriptural background to show:
1. A woman is not commanded to wear a covering when prophesying, or praying.
2. No one can state that a woman MUST wear a head-covering.
3. A woman is not required to wear a head-covering all day, part of the day, or anytime at all.
4. A woman should not make a head-covering an idol.
5. Readers should be encouraged to discover the truth for themselves by studying, praying, and reading what the scriptures say about head-coverings.
Finally, we pray that you are truly blessed in your search. Shalom!
Remember to visit TorahForwomen.com for more studies and books that we hope will help you in your journey and relationship with Yahweh.
APPENDIX
http://www.sefaria.org/Berakhot.24a?lang=he-en&layout=heLeft&sidebarLang=all
http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/meir-golda
There does, however, appear to be several writings and even a warning from Paul about a woman who prays or is prophesying, in private or in public with her head “UN-covered”, which does not mean she has no cloth cover on her head, but it does means, for the sake of definition, having her hair done up in something similar to an elaborate updo, adorned with gold, pearls and the like. There is also concern expressed about a woman being shaven or “shorn” and perhaps trying to look like a man.
A woman’s hair is her glory, a gift from Yahweh to show her as being different from a man. It is a thing of beauty and is to be respected and treated as such. A woman’s hair shows to the world and the angels that she is a woman, and no one should confuse a woman for a man because the woman cuts her hair short in the style of a man.
Is her hair an item to be worshipped? No, of course not. Is her hair to be a thing of pride? Definitely not. It is not to be our idol any more than a tallit, crucifix, statue or a person is to be made into an idol. A woman’s hair is to be respected as her God-given glory, a symbol of her womanhood, and a gift from Yahweh. It’s a symbol of who God has made her to be.
It must be said, as well, that we must stop this erroneous teaching that it is a woman’s fault when a man makes her an object of his lust because of her hair or clothing. By continuing to teach this false doctrine, women of all walks - sisters, daughters and wives are being taught that they are responsible by default of womanhood, for a man’s inability to control himself. Men need to get control of their lust because it is not from God.
1 John 2:16: “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life is not of the Father, but is of the world.”
Whether through her hair, singing voice, or her clothing it does not matter, mankind cannot continue to blame women for the sins of other men. The lie cannot be perpetuated it must end in this generation. It is our hope that everyone who reads this book will also test our teachings. We ask you to search your hearts and the scriptures in prayer so that you can experience the truth in the Word.
Some will question if this means that we are telling all women who cover that they must remove their cloth head-coverings this very instant and never wear them again. No, not at all. Our study clearly shows that there is simply no scriptural evidence for any of the false claims that demand a woman wear head-coverings. Are we saying that it is a sin to wear one while you pray, or while prophesying? Of course not. However, Torah For Women will stand firm on the fact that if a woman chooses to wear some form of head-covering, it must be understood that there is NO COMMANDMENT from Yahweh for it. It should not be taught that women MUST wear a head-covering, and the head-covering should never be placed above Yahweh in reverence or respect.
There may be times when a woman feels “moved” to do something different than others do and may feel led to wear a head-covering. Would we tell her that she is wrong in her inspirations or in her revelations? No. That is between her and Yahweh, and between her and her husband. However, her personal impression can never be interpreted as a command from Yahweh and she should never teach it to other women as such.
It is our hope that we have been able to provide enough scriptural background to show:
1. A woman is not commanded to wear a covering when prophesying, or praying.
2. No one can state that a woman MUST wear a head-covering.
3. A woman is not required to wear a head-covering all day, part of the day, or anytime at all.
4. A woman should not make a head-covering an idol.
5. Readers should be encouraged to discover the truth for themselves by studying, praying, and reading what the scriptures say about head-coverings.
Finally, we pray that you are truly blessed in your search. Shalom!
Remember to visit TorahForwomen.com for more studies and books that we hope will help you in your journey and relationship with Yahweh.
APPENDIX
http://www.sefaria.org/Berakhot.24a?lang=he-en&layout=heLeft&sidebarLang=all
http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/meir-golda
Head-Covering Dilemma SOLVED! PDF Study Guide (24 pages) |
NOTE: This PDF is watermarked and copyright protected to Torah For Women Ministries at TorahForWomen.com. It is a 24 page, printable PDF of the exact text contained in this free e-book. We make this available to individual and group study. We suggest, for groups study, you have each participant print their own copy and to conserve, they may print on both sides. We hope this suggestion helps. If you have any questions or comments, please use our contact form to reach out to us any time.
Blessings and Shalom. - Judith Garton
Blessings and Shalom. - Judith Garton