T That's what the church thinks. Why do priests not allow women into the altar? Why are there places in the church that are off-limits? Is a woman worse than a man? - answers Hierchimandrite Alypiy (Svetlichny)As some liberal-minded individuals suspect. Otherwise, the Church would not have extolled the Most Pure Mother of God so much! I would not honor the host of holy wives and virgins. Moreover, in the concept of Moral Theology there is no significant difference between a man and a woman, a layman and a priest. Theology sees us as people! People who go to salvation, or people who doom themselves to death. Only such a division. Let us turn to the Syntagma and look at Chapter 22, “That women should not enter the holy altar.” We read: “The 44th canon of the Council of Laodicea considers it inappropriate for the holy altar to be accessible to women, although previously it was also allowed to them. For if this is prohibited for male laymen (by the 69th rule of the VI Ecumenical Council), then even more so it should (be prohibited) for women. And (women are not allowed into the holy altar), as some say, for reasons of involuntary menstruation.” So that's what it's all about! It turns out that lay men are also prohibited from entering the altar! Here's what the 69th Rule of Six says about it: Ecumenical Council: “None of all the lay people will be allowed to enter the sacred altar. But according to some ancient legend, this is by no means forbidden to the power and dignity of the king when he desires to bring gifts to the Creator.” So, it is only permissible for the king to enter from the laity, both because he is the anointed one, and only when he brings a gift, i.e. royal ritual gift to the church. I think that there is no need to look for explanatory rules: it’s already clear! The sanctuary is necessary in order for sacred ceremonies to take place. It was separated from the space of the temple so that this place would not only be especially holy, but also to prevent disorder and crowding, which happens in the case of large quantity people in church, especially on holidays. The altar should be the focus of prayer and exceptional order. This is especially important in view of the fact that at the holy meal there is a Chalice with the Divine Blood! At the table - the Lamb of God in the form of Bread! No one should push anyone inadvertently, but there is attention and reverence in everything. If lay people begin to enter the altar, then the altar will become a passing place, and soon there will be disorder and inconvenience during the sacred ceremony!

And then we suddenly encounter another oddity. In convents you can see nuns at the altar! And it is for the same purpose that they are allowed to enter the altar - they serve during the service! So this means that the Church of women is allSoAndNotconsiders lower than men! Simply, there must be measure in everything, and there must be meaning and order in everything in the Church of God. And if a woman accidentally entered the altar, this does not mean that she desecrated it. No. But this means that she violated church order and sinned against the Church. And this is a reason to repent and, realizing your guilt, not to do this again, but to be modest and know your place and role. How do musicians know their instrument and part so that a symphony orchestra sounds coherently and worthy of the piece they intend to perform? Otherwise - cacophony!

ABOUT scarves and hats...for women in church from priest Konstantin Parkhomenko . Put a hat on the girl. Such a friendly conversation took place two years ago in the church of a small town in which I found myself by chance. I had a little daughter with me, and she wasn’t wearing a hat. This tradition dates back to deep Christian antiquity, namely to apostolic times. At that time, every married, respectable woman covered her head when leaving the house. The head veil, which, for example, we see on the icons of the Mother of God, testified to the woman’s marital status. This head covering meant that she was not free, that she belonged to her husband. To “bar” a woman’s crown or loosen her hair meant to humiliate or punish her.HarlotsAndvicious womendemonstrated belonging to their occupations by not covering their heads. The husband had the right to divorce his wife without returning her dowry if she appeared on the streetsimple-haired, this was considered an insult to her husband. Girls and young women did not cover their heads, I repeat once again, because the veil was a sign of the special status of a married woman. So, at home, a married woman would take off her veil and always put it on when leaving the house. Men did not have to cover their heads when leaving the house. In any case, if they covered it outside, it was because of the heat, and not because it was supposed to be so. During worship, Jews also did not cover their heads, except on special occasions. For example, they covered their heads during fasting or mourning. Those excommunicated from the synagogue and lepers were also required to cover their heads. First let's read the passage in which Paul speaks on this topic. And then I will take one or two lines at a time and comment. Thus, we will analyze the text more or less thoroughly. Here1 Corinthians 11, 1-19. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I praise you, brothers, that you remember everything I have and keep the traditions as I handed them to you. I also want you to know that the head of every husband is Christ, the head of every wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaved. For if the wife does not want to cover herself, then let her cut her hair; and if a wife is ashamed to be shorn or shaved, let her cover herself. So a husband should not cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; and the wife is the glory of the husband. For man is not from wife, but woman is from man; and man was not created for wife, but woman for man. Therefore, a wife should have on her head a sign of power over her, for the Angels.

INother than that, neither man without wife, nor wife without husband, in the Lord. For as the wife is from the husband, so is the husband through the wife; yet it is from God. Judge for yourself: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? Doesn’t nature itself teach you that if a husband grows hair, then it is a dishonor for him, but if a wife grows hair, it is an honor for her, since hair was given to her instead of a veil? And if anyone wanted to argue, then we do not have such a custom, nor the Church of God. But in offering this, I do not praise you because you are planning not for the best, but for the worst. For, firstly, I hear that when you gather for church, there are divisions among you, which I partly believe. For there must also be differences of opinion among you, so that those who are skillful may be revealed among you.Is there a Christian basis for a woman wearing a head covering?

No, this is a general Eastern tradition that was adopted during the time of the Apostle Paul. So that Christians do not “scandalize” society and appear as troublemakers and violators of public decency, says Ap. Paul, they should adhere to this custom. Here’s another question from a parishioner: How are things at home? My father says that you should pray in a headscarf at home, too. Read the Gospel and the Psalter too, with your head covered. This confuses me a little.

M th analysis of the topic of women in the church. It so happened that I am studying the processes of Divine government on Earth from the point of view technical systems automatic control.
I do not reject information from existing priests, if it is logical, neither channeling, nor, as was recently the case, about life in the Essenes sect using regression hypnosis. The LOGIC of God is important to me. And not time, since God does not have time, he himself creates time cycles, and even repeats them many times. So let's turn to the topic of our conversation. There is such an amazing woman - her name is Merry Hope. It was she who raised the topic - The Essence of a Woman more than 40 years ago and wrote the book - The Essence of a Woman. This book is online and I recommend it to you. Including reading this book to modern priests. So I myself began to analyze why all the religions of the world (Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist) - all of them a very long time ago, from 3 to 6 thousand years ago, received an order from God to transition to patriarchy. That is, long before the advent of Christianity Kievan Rus There was already inequality between men and women. How does it feel for our priests to hear this? Next, I wondered, why did God do this to women? Not only did I find the answer, but I even participated in a spiritual ritual myself (at the request of God Shiva himself). What was really the matter? In the book about Lemuria (more than 30 thousand years ago)The separation of the sexes began. This happened simultaneously with climate changes on Earth. It was then that the division of the sexes also took place in our souls. So, in the soul of a woman, God did not calculate the strength of sexual attraction - it was already very strong. Hence the women with such a sexyunbalanced souls sometimes allowed themselves sexual relations with animals. And this happened all over the world. That’s when a whole group of people with animal heads appeared, and such a phenomenon was not pleasing to God. The woman was cooler in terms of energy and connection with mother earth. And her God (and not the priests) of that time decided energeticallycoarse. So they covered it with scarves. Well, the presence of patriarchy has led to artificial social and religious inhibition of the development of women in general. Although my intuition suggests that besides these arguments there are several more.
Look at the picture from ancient egypt. When a person dies, the soul is separated from him and sent to quality control. It is the Goddess of Truth Maat who gives her pen as a standard of piety for your soul. You and I have all already gone through this ritual, although we don’t remember it. If your thoughts are more in line with the Animal (sexual) nature, then be so kind as to go for reincarnation again and incarnate into a human body. Another thing is that suicides - their souls can be destroyed. What was the knowledge of the ancient Egyptians? But pay attention to those who perform this ritual of weighing the soul? Those gods just have animal heads? What is it like for modern priests to look at this perversion? With their morality and imaginary celibacy?

AThis is already our homeland. Fresco of the Yaroslavl Transfiguration Cathedral. After the Synod banned “strange and terrible” images of Christopher with a dog’s head in 1722, many such paintings were banned. However, for me this logic is not yet final. After all, it is very possible that these creatures with animal heads still carry out the ritual of weighing the soul?

But let's return again to the original topic. It's already coming new era Aquarius. The cosmic pendulum went in the other direction. What does this mean for religions around the world?And the fact that the social status of women must change!The fact is that the condition for incarnation on earth is the presence of certain lessons that our soul has not learned. Well, for example, I read in Codex 2 of an ancient Egyptian parchment about the soul of a woman who is called the “Whore.” What is it like after so many millennia of education about female sexuality? But I have another question. This is a question of the skull. After all, our skull is a communication channel. Watch the latest 16th Battle of Psychics. The question is now for our priests, what about our religion (and these frescoes with animal heads were much later than the presence of all the previous arguments of Orthodox priests - 1772)? How Orthodox religion, knowing about the letters of Paul, she tolerated animal heads and even glorified them on frescoes? I am tormented by the lack of understanding of what information passed through the skull. After all, there were plenty of Orthodox priests back then? Was this entity the best among them? But this is a topic for further research.

Nowadays, there is a pious tradition: in the temple, women cover their heads, and men take off their headdress. How did this “instruction” come about? And does it mean that during home prayer Should women cover their heads? Is it possible to come to church not in a scarf, but in a hat? Are girls allowed to be bareheaded in church? In this article we will look at how the tradition of covering the head began, what it meant for Christians in the first centuries and how it relates to our time.

What does the Apostle Paul say about covering the head?

There is an opinion among Christians that covering the head is one of the main requirements for the appearance of a woman in the temple.

It is supported by words from the First Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians:

And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is the same as if she were shaved. For if the wife does not want to cover herself, then let her cut her hair; and if a woman is ashamed to be shorn or shaved, let her cover herself (1 Cor. 11:5-6).

Firstly, covering the head is a symbol of the wife's submission. Subordination to whom? To my husband and God. Just don’t take the word “submission” in the sense of family tyranny.

Just as Christ presides in the Church, so in the small church - the family - the husband presides. The headship of the husband is manifested in his care and responsibility for his wife and children.

Secondly, covering the head indicates the woman's humility and chastity. To better understand the meaning of this statement, we must turn to those historical realities, in which the Apostle Paul wrote an appeal to the Corinthians.

Why didn’t women in ancient times let their hair down or cut it?

Imagine that you are in 1st century Corinth. This is a rich Greek city with two ports, 700 thousand people, representatives of different cultures and religions. There are many pagan temples built in Corinth, one of the most famous is dedicated to the goddess of love and fertility Aphrodite. Cult prostitution flourishes in this temple. Aphrodite's servants are easily distinguished by their shaved heads.

In addition, it is not only temple prostitution that is widespread in the city. You can easily meet harlots on the streets; they attracted the attention of men with their hair loose and not hidden under a scarf.

This is why the Apostle Paul draws attention to head covering for women. If you don’t want to resemble a harlot, wear a headdress so as not to seduce a stranger. If you don’t want to be like Aphrodite’s servant, grow your hair, because it is a woman’s natural cover.

So that no one doubts the purity and morality of the Corinthian Christian women, the apostle advises that women “praying or prophesying” should cover their heads. This rule has been preserved in many churches to this day.

What should a modern woman look like in a temple?

Head covering is one of the important elements"church dress code". And it doesn’t matter what kind of headdress you wear - be it a headscarf, a scarf, a hat, or a beret. The Apostle Paul uses the word "cover", not a scarf, and you can even cover your head with a hood.

Girls and young women (it is believed that up to approximately adolescence) can be in the temple without a headdress. Even on Orthodox icons holy women are depicted with their heads covered, and girls - without a veil. You can clearly see this on the icon of saints martyrs Vera, Nadezhda, Lyubov and their mother Sophia.

But today, believing mothers often tie scarves to their daughters in infancy so that they “get used to it.”

If everything is more or less clear with the presence of a headscarf on a woman in church, then what should Christian women do during home prayer? Is head covering an important condition here too?

Is it possible to pray at home without a headscarf?

Even among priests, opinions on this issue differ.

Most conservative They believe that married women should cover their heads not only in church, because the headdress indicates the wife’s humility and obedience to her husband. An excellent illustration of this point of view can be found in the book of Genesis. Rebekah, Isaac's wife, only seeing her future husband in the distance, took the veil and covered herself (Gen. 24:65).

Other priests believe this example should be seen in its historical and cultural context. Our cultural code does not include the rule of mandatory head covering for women. Just as it is difficult to imagine Muslim women without a hijab, it is also difficult to imagine all modern women of Slavic appearance in headscarves and scarves. A headscarf on a young girl's head, especially in the warmer months, can attract additional attention and tempt others to judge.

Therefore, it arose third opinion: you should cover your head in church, and, if possible, during home prayer. The Apostle Paul recalled a woman praying, without specifying whether she was in church or not.

Archpriest Andrei Efanov believes that covering the head during the morning and evening rule disciplines a woman, helps her concentrate on prayer.

There is also fourth vision: in the temple women should pray with their heads covered, but in all other situations it is possible to do so. Moreover, the Apostle Paul calls us to unceasing prayer, that is, to constant remembrance of God. And such a prayer should not depend on external circumstances - the presence or absence of scarves, appearance, mood, environment, geographical location.

Corinth during the time of the Apostle Paul was a huge city. Its population numbered more than seven hundred thousand people. Since the city was located on a narrow isthmus connecting the southern part of Greece with its northern part, all traffic from north to south was concentrated in Corinth - there was no other way. This geographical position made Corinth one of the important trading centers of the ancient world.

Corinth was the richest and largest city in Greece. The population lived in luxury, and luxury and material prosperity always go hand in hand with unrighteousness.

It was to this city that the Apostle Paul came in 51 and preached the Gospel in weakness and fear. Some time later, Paul wrote two letters to the Christians of this city. In the first, he touched on a number of pressing issues, one of which is the requirement for Christian sisters to cover their heads.

Paul's teaching is not a statement of ancient Jewish tradition. The head covering was different from...

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

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

The answer to a similar question has already been given earlier in the material “Can a woman pray with her head uncovered?” However, now we will approach this topic from a slightly different direction.

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

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

First of all, let us remember that Bible verses often cannot be understood as separate independent phrases, that is, taken out of the context of the narrative. All messages are integral sermons of the apostles and prophets and consist of complete passages - parts...

Each of the existing religions carries within itself a set of certain rules and foundations. Some of them are radically different. But there is also general canons, which are observed in many world religions. For example, Christianity, Judaism and Islam prohibit a woman from walking with her head uncovered. Naturally, there are certain nuances in observing these traditions.

Christianity

According to biblical laws, by covering her head, a woman recognizes the headship of a man. The Apostle Paul said that submission to a man was ordained by God. And every Christian woman should gratefully accept masculinity. A woman's covered head symbolizes humility and is considered important principle Christian faith. The scripture says that every woman should grow her hair and cover it with a scarf. Nowadays on the street you rarely see a woman tied with a scarf. Mostly modern women Christianity wears a headscarf only in church, which cannot be said about Muslim women who religiously...

HEAD COVERING

Covering the head in public was considered a common custom in many ancient cultures. For a decent woman to appear in public without a headdress was considered shameful and indecent. It was a similar disgrace for a woman to cut her hair. A woman had to grow her hair all her life and no haircuts were allowed.

This is quite understandable to the residents of Russia. In Rus' this custom also took place. Appearing in public or allowing yourself to be seen by a stranger without a covered head was shame and disgrace for a woman. This is well reflected in the well-known word expressing shame and disgrace - “to be a fool”, i.e. allow yourself to be seen without a covered head, with “bare hair.” Generally accepted standards of decency required a woman to have her hair uncut and to cover her hair whenever she went outside the home.

The Apostle, touching on this issue, also refers not to the texts of Scripture, but to the realities of culture and standards of decency. Paul writes: “Every woman who prays or...

Why is it forbidden for a woman to enter temples and monasteries in trousers and with her head uncovered?

For every task there is appropriate clothing: you won’t go to the stadium in an evening dress, and you won’t go to the theater in a tracksuit. There is also a tradition of appropriate attire when visiting temples, and especially monasteries.

The purpose of visiting church is prayer. And according to the Holy Scriptures, a woman should pray with her head covered. It is very good that now in many churches and monasteries you can get a scarf at the entrance.

As for the trousers, then Holy Bible requires women to dress in women's clothing and men in men's clothing. Therefore, it is better for a woman who is specifically going to go to the temple to wear a skirt of the appropriate length.

In all cases, we must try to respect the pious traditions of our people and our Church, because, as they say, you don’t go to someone else’s monastery with your own rules.

But if a person came to the temple for the first time or suddenly...

Why should women cover their heads in the temple?

Girls and young women did not cover their heads, because the veil was a sign of the special status of a married woman (which is why, according to tradition, an unmarried...

The tradition of covering one's head in church is not a law, but a persistent recommendation of the Holy Apostle Paul. According to his Epistle to the Corinthians, a man should pray with his head uncovered, and a woman with her head covered. Since ancient times, women's hair was considered one of the most expressive elements of female attractiveness, and this was a counterbalance to modesty, one of the signs of which was covered hair.

Even in the pre-Christian era, hetaeras in Greece walked with uncovered hair, and married women had to express their belonging to their husband by covering their heads, thereby showing that they belonged to their husband.

Where did the tradition of covering women's heads in church come from?

According to the instructions of the apostle appearance a believer, regardless of gender, must be restrained and modest, and cannot be a source of temptation or embarrassment. A believer in a church should be in the mood for prayer, express with his appearance respect and reverence for the holiness of the temple and what is happening in it...

This is the tradition.

Previously, in general, women walked around with their heads covered all the time, and those with uncovered ones were considered women of easy virtue.

The covering on a woman’s head signifies her dependence on her husband (and if he is not there, then on her father, brother or son). A woman who did not have a male protector (husband, father, brother or son) was not a full member of society. In fact, she did not have any civil or property rights at all. At the same time, the covering on the head also became a sign of a woman’s chastity - belonging to her husband (it was implied - and to no one else). A woman who did not wear a covering on her head was considered a “girl of easy virtue.” Hence it is obvious why the apostle recommends that Christian women wear a veil, especially in church (in those days Christians were often accused of cultic immorality, and Paul's demand countered this accusation).

********************************************************

A woman wearing a headscarf is a sign that this woman belongs...

11.09.2014

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

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

By the way, in ancient culture the head was covered as a sign of modesty. Hair at that time was considered the most striking attribute of female attractiveness and beauty. Family women they were not able to walk around with their hair down, and were required to wear a headdress such as a scarf. The headscarf was an indicator that the woman was busy and belonged...

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

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

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

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

The issue of scarves and headscarves often becomes a subject of disagreement and controversy. This happens because people try to elevate to the rank of dogma something that for some reason God did not consider it necessary to explain in detail in his Word - the Bible. The topic of covering the head is addressed in just one place in the New Testament, in 1 Cor. 11:3-16. Jesus Christ did not say anything on this issue, Peter, James, and John also do not mention anything about it in their epistles. The problem is complicated by the fact that even in the only place where the Apostle Paul touches on the issue of the veil, his main topic is not the elements of clothing, but the essence of the system of authorities within the framework of the family structure. The covering of the head in this place is mentioned by Paul more as an illustration of the principle of a wife's subordination to her husband than as a dogmatic teaching.

This is likely why Paul does not present detailed teaching on this issue. Moreover, when speaking about covering the head, he uses several arguments that, while understandable to the Christians of Corinth, are difficult...

Please explain how a woman should treat the veil on her head (1 Cor. 11). And what should a Christian woman look like?
Thank you for your question about the proper attitude of women towards the veil. This question is clearly stated by the Apostle Paul, and if you read what he wrote with an open mind, you will not come to any other conclusion: during worship, a woman should have a veil on her head, as a sign of her submission to God’s order to be a helpmate to her husband. However, pride prevents us from literally understanding the text of Chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians and the search for other explanations begins. Likewise, for Eve, the literal understanding of God’s words “do not eat or touch, you will die” was unacceptable. She interpreted it in such a way that yesterday it was impossible, but today it is possible... I couldn’t find anything better than to refer to the International Christian Newspaper, which discussed this issue. And so that you don’t have to look for this article for a long time, I present it below. As for women's clothing, the main principle in clothing is not so much the color or style, but...

Once on the site, one of the forum participants raised an interesting topic. She wrote: “There is a lot of debate in our community about the need for women to cover their heads during prayer.”

The question involuntarily immediately arises: “Why a scarf, or maybe some other headdress?”

Let us consider this question, what exactly does Paul want to say to the Corinthian women?

Let's take a simpler approach to this issue.

Let's take a modern translation and analyze 1 Corinthians 11, regarding the veil on the woman's head:

“But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered brings shame upon her own head. She is like a woman who shaved her head” (verse 5).

Do you see how the apostle sneers: If a woman prays with her head uncovered, is it the same as shaving her head?

From this text we can only draw one conclusion for now: In order not to incur...

There is no obligation for a woman to enter an Orthodox church with her head covered.
This is not an obligation, but a historical tradition and recommendations of the Apostle Paul. Moreover, tradition can be the opposite. For example, in Greece Orthodox churches Women are required to enter without a headdress (!) This approach to a woman’s covered head was developed by the Greeks during the national liberation struggle against the Turks.
And moreover, in Ukraine there is a temple - in Akhtyrka (Sumy region) - where, according to their tradition, women enter the temple with their heads uncovered, since the image of Mother of God with his head uncovered.
— Priest Georgy spoke about all this today on radio “Era.”
— And when asked why women are not allowed into certain churches by grandmothers if she does not have a headscarf, Father George answered with some irritation: we know about this problem, that some ministers are trying to impose their vision of faith in God, and we are trying to fight it. And, in general, it is better to come to God uncovered...

From time immemorial, women wear headscarves to church. Even skirts are now considered not as important an attribute as a scarf on the head - they say that it is better to go to temple in jeans, but with a headdress, than in a skirt and without it. Why do women cover their heads in church, and what is the tradition of wearing a headscarf in church connected with?

The legend of scarves and skirts in the church

There is a legend about scarves and long skirts in church. They say that in ancient world people came to the temple in whatever they had to wear. And God was not too pleased with this.

Therefore, God sent a vision to one of the young girls and said: “If you go to the temple with your head covered and long skirt, your prayers will be heard, because an Angel will be assigned to you to help. But how else will he recognize you if you are not different from other girls?”

As was to be expected, the next day the girl came to the temple in a long skirt and a headscarf, and when her friends asked why she dressed up so strangely, the beauty told about her vision.

Naturally, this wonderful news about the new “church dress code” instantly spread throughout the world. And, of course, everyone wanted to have their own Angel and quick answers to prayers, which means everyone began to come to the temple as expected.

Many centuries have passed since then, but the tradition of going to church in a headscarf and long skirt has remained. True, now the skirt has become out of favor. Who knows, maybe that’s why the prayers of modern girls don’t reach heaven so quickly?

This legend is just a comic illustration of a topical topic. But, without a doubt, the tradition of covering the head in church dates back to ancient times.

And one of the sources of such a tradition is, first of all, the Holy Word of God - the Bible, which guides Christians.

What the Bible Says About Head Covering

What does the Bible say about covering the head and why a woman should wear a headscarf in church?

In the 1st letter of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthian Church, chapter 11 says that it is indecent for a woman to pray with her head uncovered. Moreover, the wife must have on her head the sign of her husband's authority.

There is also a mention that hair was given to a woman instead of a veil. And they are an honor for her, while for a man long hair- a shame (with which many representatives of the stronger sex now disagree).

However, it is strange for a modern woman to consider a fashionable haircut or even shaving a shame. Just as it is strange to replace the bedspread with loose hair.

What is the point here? Without a detailed analysis of the text and immersion in the traditions of Corinth, where the Apostle’s letter was sent, it is clearly impossible to understand here.

Why did women in Corinth cover their heads in church?

It turns out there is a simple explanation for why some women in Corinth covered their heads in the temple. But this is where the tradition of wearing a headscarf in church came from.

During the time of the First Apostolic Church in Corinth there was big temple the goddess Artemis, containing priestesses of love with whom any man could have a relationship for money. Distinctive feature The priestesses had a shaved head.

Unprofessional prostitutes of that time, in order to show their occupation, cut off the hair on their temples. Accordingly, if your temples were trimmed or you were shaved bald, it became clear who you were. This was a kind of sign of women of easy virtue.

What were Christian converts with a dark past supposed to do? When they entered the church, everyone saw that their hair was short or shaved - and by this they not only brought shame upon themselves, but also cast a shadow on the entire church.

Knowing what the Corinthian community was facing, Paul wrote, “Women, let your hair grow long, do not cut it, and if your hair is in trouble, cover your heads, so that no one will think you are wicked women.”

It turns out that the whole issue of the biblical passage lies in the characteristics of the territory to which the message was intended. Although, of course, a similar situation could be observed in other areas. The main thing is that the very idea of ​​​​the emergence of a tradition for a woman to cover her head in church is clear.

Traditions of covering a woman's head

Of course, according to modern understanding women's clothing In addition to the Bible, the church was influenced by the traditions of the ancient world.

In the traditions of the ancient world (Greece, Rome, Byzantium), headdresses were of great importance for women.

First of all, it was necessary for protection from aggressive weather conditions. It’s not for nothing that in hot southern countries and deserts women still cover their heads - otherwise they simply cannot protect themselves.

In addition to protection and convenience, the cape symbolized maturity, and wearing it was an honor for a woman, while bareness of the head was the greatest shame for a married woman.

In ancient Rus', women's headdress (scarf) was also required. It was called "ubrus". Another scarf was worn under the headdress, which insulated the head and protected the outer covering from contamination. In winter, a hat or fur scarf was worn over the scarf.

We also know about the existence of kokoshnik and kiki.

Later, the ancient headdresses were replaced by hats.

Currently, the tradition of covering women's heads has been lost, although there is a tendency to return them, because even on the street you can see women wearing headscarves. And it's really very feminine and beautiful.

It’s a different story when they don’t let you into church without a headscarf, explaining it as tradition. A woman with her head uncovered in church is condemned, and this is considered indecent and unacceptable.

Is this really fair?

Why is the woman wearing a headscarf in church?

As we said earlier, the need to cover the head was determined by the traditions of a certain area and time. In the modern world, things are a little different.

Why do women now wear headscarves in church? Should women cover their heads in church these days?

Agree, now no one will say that you are a lady of easy virtue if you cut your hair or even shave. In extreme cases, you will be described as a very eccentric person.

We are no longer talking about our grandmothers who cut their hair because it is inconvenient for them to care for long hair.

And if we talk about a sign of power over a married woman, then now wedding ring acts as a blanket.

To top it all off, we don’t wear headscarves everywhere, except for Siberian women cold winter. Therefore, the meaning of wearing a headscarf before entering the temple is, in general, lost.

In addition, God-fearing women also pray at home. Is it necessary to wear a headscarf when praying, where no one can see you? And if you have great desire pray somewhere on the road, but don’t have a scarf? Will your prayer not be answered because of his absence?

The clergy say that praying with your head uncovered is not a sin; a woman, at her discretion, as a sign of humility, can wear a headscarf when saying a prayer at home.

So why is it so necessary to wear a headscarf or scarf on your head in church?

According to the Apostle, a woman’s veil is her hair (we are not saying here that it is necessary to let it down instead of a scarf). But, nevertheless, from this statement the conclusion follows that a headscarf during prayer is not as important for God and for you as, perhaps, for the people around you.

And, of course, we are not calling on you to start a revolution in a holy place, we are simply trying to draw your attention to things that may be much more important than the formal wearing of a headdress in the temple, more important than a bare head in church.

If the Apostle Paul had written his epistle on modern language and according to our culture, what would his words sound like? Perhaps he would tell us about provocative clothing, tons of makeup on the face and a demeanor that makes us easily mistaken for frivolous girls?

Is it not reasonable for those who consider themselves believers to dress and behave in accordance with such a high title? And do this not only in front of the temple door, but also in Everyday life so as not to dishonor yourself and not anger God.

Whether to wear a headscarf when entering a church is a personal matter for everyone, although perhaps it should be consistent with the ideas of the people around them, in order not to give them a reason for condemnation.

Church rule for women

The only compelling argument for why women should wear a headscarf in church is that by going there we are accepted and respected. church rules. After all, as they say, you don’t go to someone else’s monastery with your own rules. And covering a woman’s head is a church rule.

So, we explained why modern women cover their heads in church and expressed our own opinion about this tradition. Of course, this is just a point of view, but it has a right to exist.

On our self-development portal we will find a lot useful information, about that, and .

Daniel Wallace, Doctor,
Associate Professor, New Testament teacher
Dallas Theological Seminary
[email protected]

Translated specifically for the site

The following “exegesis” (if we can call it that) is no more than an attempt to obtain an answer that simultaneously satisfies both the hermeneutical and practical components of the burning question arising from this passage: firstly, what does “head covering” mean here and Secondly, how does this scripture apply to us today?

There are several common interpretations of this text, but among evangelical churches, three or four of the following immediately come to mind:

(1) This text not applicable by now. Paul speaks of a “custom” handed down to him, i.e. traditions. Accordingly, since there is no such tradition in our time, we should hardly pay attention to this text.

(2) "Head covering" is hair. Therefore, as applied to us today, this means that women should wear (relatively) long hair.

(3) "Head covering" is literally covering the head and text refers to the present time just as in Paul's time. This point of view has two options:

• All women must wear a veil over their heads during church services.
• The veil is only required for women to wear during church services when they are publicly praying or prophesying.

(4) “Head covering” – a symbol of something that had meaning V ancient times, and what the corresponding symbol should be found for Nowadays, although not necessarily a veil on the head. This point of view is divided into the same two sub-points as #3.

My beliefs coincide with position No. 4. I go with her second option: women should wear a symbol only when they publicly pray or prophesy. What follows are critical reflections on each of these points of view.

Position “This text has no relation to the present time”

This point of view is easy to refute. It is based on a misinterpretation of the words "tradition" ("παράδοσις" [paraAdosis]) in verse 2 and "custom" ("συνήθεια" [sunEteia]) in verse 16. A defense of this position could be built on verse 16, but only if ignore verse 2.

Of the two Greek words, the term "συνήθεια" from verse 16 describes the less strict traditions. This word is used when talking about some custom or habitual way of doing things. It is mentioned only three times in the New Testament (1 Cor. 11:16, John 18:39, 1 Cor. 8:7). In In. 18 - merely indicates a noble custom (the practice of releasing a prisoner on Easter). Although one might assume that the custom described in chapter 18 of the Gospel of John arose from oral Jewish traditions and therefore acquired the status of law for the Jews, we have no evidence to support this. Morris believes the custom is "shrouded in mystery." Possibly, but not necessarily, this custom is referred to in Psakhima- Chapter 8, Mishna 6. Thus, we do not have sufficient evidence to say for sure that this tradition was binding. In 1 Cor. 8:7 the meaning of the word has the same connotation. We are talking about those who are accustomed to separating meat sacrificed to idols from converts who are not sacrificed to idols and the need to treat them with care. The “custom” that they, as Christians, still in some sense adhere to, is not something that Paul is establishing here. On the contrary, he would rather they were strong Christians than continue to follow this custom. That is, “custom” here also does not impose obligations, but is carried out out of personal preference or understanding. To summarize, the meaning of the Greek term “custom” in 1 Cor. 11:16 gives every right to conclude that the wearing of a veil on the head of women in the early church may have been no more than a local custom of that time. However, once we look at verse 2, it becomes apparent that verse 16 says much more.

In verse 2, Paul praises the church for holding to the traditions (“παραδόσεις” [paradOseis], dictionary form “παράδοσις” [parAdosis] – “tradition”) that he handed down to them (“παρέδωκα” [parEdoka], dictionary form “ παραδίδωμι" [paradIdomi] – “passing on”). In verse 3, he goes on to describe one of these traditions (using the connecting particle “δέ” [de] - “same”, “also”). The fact that verse 3 opens the description of one of the traditions is clear from the fact that the word “praise” (“ἐπαινῶ” [epainО]) is repeated before the description of the tradition: the first time in verse 2 and the second time in verse 17. Each of the two paragraphs , which begin with the words “I praise,” reveals how the church follows Paul’s instructions regarding corporate worship. (Perhaps the tradition of covering the head was better obeyed than the ordinances regarding the breaking of bread, because Paul does not say “I do not praise” in the first case, but emphasizes it in the second (verse 17)).

Verse 2 is notable for the force of the terms "παραδίδωμι" and "παράδοσις." The verb “παραδίδωμι” is used very often in the sense of “passing on the truth to the next generation.” He is mentioned 19 times in Paul's letters. In in all cases, when this verb is used in the positive context of voluntary surrender (i.e., as opposed to "handing over" a criminal to the authorities, etc.), it has the character of a serious dedication, talking about the transfer of doctrine. Compare: Rome. 6:17 (“they became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching which betrayed themselves"); 1 Corinthians 11:23 (“For I have received from the Lord [Himself] what was also given to you passed on"); 1 Cor. 15:3 (teaching about the death and resurrection of Christ: “For I was originally taught you, which [himself] also accepted, [that is] that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures." In other cases (negative context) the word means “to put someone to prison, death, etc.” The second meaning is partly present in the first and gives it a deeper coloring: the verb carries the meaning of devoting oneself to something - both with the mind and with the whole life. Christ gave Myself himself for us (Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:2, 25).

The noun “παράδοσις” is no less important for the formation of theological conclusions. Paul uses this word only five times, but when it is used in the sense of a “tradition” that he, as a Christian, accepts, then such traditions are obligatory for everyone to follow. In 2 Thess. 2:15 Paul instructs the believers to stand firm and hold to the tradition he handed down to them. In 2 Thess. 3:6 he commands believers to distance themselves from every believer who does not adhere to the traditions received from him. So, it is impossible to ignore the semantic load of both the verb “παραδίδωμι” and the contextually similar use of the noun “παράδοσις”. These words do not make it possible to interpret the word “tradition” as simply a “good custom” that can be abandoned if desired.

How can we reconcile 1 Cor. 11:2 with 1 Cor. 11:16? Verse 2 controls verse 16. I.e. because the course of action about which we're talking about, was called “παράδοσις”, it had the status of orthopraxy (“rules”, “correct practice”). And because it was a doctrine, it was carefully followed in all the churches. In citing the example of other churches in verse 16, Paul uses the word “custom” to describe how these churches practiced the doctrine. It is the same as saying, “Christ died for you; therefore you must hold the breaking of bread. Besides, other Christians are already practicing this, and no one has any other course of action.” The application of the doctrine is accompanied and expressed in a certain way of action, physical form.

To summarize the above, the Greek text of Scripture does not support the thesis: “1 Cor. 11:2-16 has no relevance to the present time.” This position is based on some translations of the Bible; at the same time, traditions and customs are interpreted as something optional and the fact is omitted that with these words (“tradition”, “transmitted”) Paul described the commandments about the death and resurrection of Christ, which he certainly did not consider optional.

Position “Head covering is hair”

One of the most popular views today is that the veil was the woman's hair. It is already more difficult to evaluate this position. It is based on the exegesis of verse 15:

“ἡ κόμη ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δέδοται” [he kOme anti ParibolAiu dEdotai] – “hair was given to her instead of a veil”

Among proponents of this view, it is often believed that in verses 2-14 the woman is or is not wearing a veil. And then it makes sense that verse 15 explains that the covering is her hair. Numbers 5:18 is also often cited for argument. For example, in Hurley we read:

“In Numbers 5:18, the adulterous woman was accused of neglecting her relationship with her husband because... she gave herself to another. A sign of this was that the hair that was laid up was loose. In the original Hebrew text, a verb that is used to describe both loose hair and an uncovered head, in Old Testament(פרע), on Greek language translated using the word AkatakAluptos is the same word Paul uses when talking about having your head uncovered. Did Paul ask the Corinthian women not to wear veils, but to wear their hair in a certain way that would distinguish them as women?”

The quotation from Hurley seems to imply that the Septuagint in Num. 5:18 there is the word “ἀκατακάλυπτος” [akatakAluptos]. If this were so, it would be possible that in 1 Cor. 11 Paul had this text in mind. However, this word is not in the book of Numbers! Indeed, it is almost impossible to use the mention of this dictionary form in the Septuagint in the argumentation of this position: it occurs in only one verse of the OT (Lev. 13:45), not in the context of “loose hair” and only in one of the variants of the Greek text (Alexandrian code, taking into account corrections made by scribes (A c); in the Vatican Code - “ἀκάλυπτος” [akAluptos], and in the Alexandrian original text (A*) - “ἀκατάλυπτος” [akatAluptos]). To argue that Paul in 1 Cor. 11 uses “ἀκατακάλυπτος” [akatakAluptos] to mean “loose” is as absurd as concluding: “All the Indians follow each other in single file, at least the one I saw walked behind the one in front.” Next, the Bauer-Dunker Greek Lexicon (BAGD) gives the meaning of the word in 1 Cor 11 "uncovered" and does not allow the translation option “loose.” The dictionary meaning of the word was inferred from the available Greek and classical literature. Thus, Hurley's argument is not supported by sufficient evidence.

Moreover, it is important to note two things: (1) there are no words in verses 2-14 that are translated “veil.” Those. Just because verse 15 refers to hair as a covering does not necessarily mean that the verses above also refer to hair. (2) In this passage Paul points out similarity between long hair and the bedspread. But this is precisely what speaks in favor of the fact that hair and a veil are not the same thing. Because they are called similar, they are not identical. Notice the following verses.
11:5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for [it is] as if it were shaved.
11:6 For if a woman does not want to cover herself, then let her have her hair cut; and if a wife is ashamed to be shorn or shaved, let her cover herself.
11:7 So a husband should not cover his head...
11:10 Therefore a woman should have on her head [the sign of] authority [over] [her]
11:13 Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
11:15 but if a wife grows her hair, it is an honor for her...

From here, several logical observations can be made. (1) If "veil" is "hair", then all men should shave their heads or be bald, because men should not cover their heads. (2) If “veil” is “long hair,” then verse 6 sounds like a tautology, because “not to wear long hair” and “to cut hair” describe one thing – “to wear short hair”: “if a woman does not wear long hair, then she should cut her hair.” And as a result, the argument (that the absence of a veil during public prayer/prophecy is as bad as a woman having her hair cut) ceases to sound like an argument. (3) The very adherence to this point of view reveals its inconsistency. By replacing “head covering” with “hair” when reading, you have to perform several exegetical circles and move away from the direct meaning of the text. (4) If hair and head covering are the same thing, then verses 10 and 15 contradict each other. In verse 10, the veil is a “sign of authority” over a woman, a symbol of her submission and obedience, and in verse 15 this is her glory. Paul begins verse 10 with a reference to verse 9 (“therefore”): because “the woman was created for the man,” she should wear the sign of authority over her on her head. In the Greek text, verse 15 is even more expressive, since the pronoun “she” is in the Dative case of utility (Dativus commodi) - i.e. she is the object in whose interests glory is given; she is the recipient of fame; literally “it is an honor/glory to her,” or “for her, for her benefit.” However, it is unlikely that these verses contain almost the opposite meaning!

So, to insist that the long hair is the woman's covering is to miss the function of both the covering and the long hair that Paul speaks of: the covering shows the woman's submission, the hair her glory. The similarity between the veil and hair is that their absence (veil during prayer or prophecy; shaved hair at any time) is humiliation and shame for a woman.

Position "Head covering - literal head covering applicable today"

Point of view "literal head covering And applicable precisely in this form,” is, in a sense, easiest to defend as a matter of interpretation; however, it is most difficult to come to terms with when it comes to practical submission. Because it is dangerous to ignore one's own conscience regarding the truths of Scripture, I have followed this position until recently. To be honest, I didn’t like it (and this is far from the most popular position today). But I couldn’t, being honest with myself, refuse her. The essence of this position comes down to three assumptions: (1) the text refers to a literal covering of the head; (2) Paul was writing about a serious institution, not just a social convention; and (3) the head covering itself is an integral part of Paul's position communicated in this passage. Below are the arguments supporting these claims.

Thus, this argument is an important theological belief (as opposed to simply the custom of that society), based on several key points of Christian doctrine: (1) the principles of trinitarianism, (2) creation, (3) angelology, (4) general revelation, and (5) church practice. Therefore, for Paul, deviation from his instruction on covering the head meant a distorted angelology, an erroneous understanding of anthropology and ecclesiology, a destructive Trinitarianism, and a failure in general revelation. Moreover, focusing only on verse 16 (as those who adhere to the first “not applicable to us” position do) is like skimming through the most important part of this passage with your eyes closed.

The practical adherence to this position has two options: (1) by women during the entire church service; (2) by women when they pray or prophesy in public. Without going into detail, I support option two simply because that is how the doctrine is stated in verses 4-5. After referring to theological background in the introduction (verses 2-3), Paul identifies the topic of his address—men and women praying or prophesying in the congregation. That this theme is the focus is evident from the fact that it is repeated in verse 13 (“the woman shall pray”). It seems to me unjustified to make the scope of application wider than suggested in the topic (verses 4-5). Thus, all arguments and principles are directed towards and apply to women praying and prophesying in a public place. Moreover, if this limitation of application is true, we have another argument in favor of the fact that “head covering” is not “long hair”, because A woman cannot instantly change from long hair to short hair and back again. The cover can be put on and taken off.

There is only one thing left for us to do - to consider what regulatory symbol can replace a head covering today.

Position “Head covering is a symbol”

This position adopts the same exegesis of the text as the previous position on the literal covering of the head, but there is one exception. Now I also adhere to this point of view. The reasoning is based on an understanding of the role of head covering in the ancient world and in modern world. In the ancient world, covering the head was fashionable separate parts Greco-Roman Empire. Somewhere it was considered the norm for men to cover their heads; somewhere there are women. And in some places it was not mandatory for either men or women. It is not so important to establish exactly where the rules were. It is much more significant to note that the early church adopted an already existing social tradition and made it an expression of some Christian virtue. That Paul could say that other churches had no different custom may well indicate how easy it was this image actions could enter Christian society. There is an analogy here with the rite of baptism in Israel. The Pharisees did not ask John " What you are doing?" They asked: "Why You are you doing this? They understood what baptism was (despite the fact that John’s baptism was obviously carried out for the first time by someone over the person being baptized, in contrast to the then-known baptism of oneself); but they did not understand where John got the authority to baptize and what his baptism symbolized. Likewise, the early church practice of requiring women praying or prophesying to wear a veil did not seem unusual. In the big cities of Asia Minor, Macedonia and Greece, no one would feel out of place. Head covers were worn everywhere. When a woman wore a veil in church, she showed her submission to her husband, but at the same time did not stand out in society. One could easily imagine walking down the street on church service a woman with her head covered, but not attracting any attention to herself.

Today the situation is different, at least in the West. Wearing a veil on a woman's head would be downright humiliating. Many women - even truly biblically submissive wives - disagree with this precisely because they feel awkward and draw attention to themselves. But the covering of the head in Paul's day was intended only to show the woman's submission, not her humiliation. Surprisingly, nowadays, forcing women to wear a veil during services is like telling them to shave their heads! The result will be the opposite of what Paul wanted to achieve. Thus, if we seek to fulfill the spirit of the apostolic teaching, and not just the letter, we need to find a suitable symbol to replace the veil.

We are faced with two questions. Firstly, How justify using another symbol of power on a woman's head if covering her head is now a symbol of humiliation? Secondly, Which exactly should we use a symbol?

Regarding the first question: let’s approach the justification of another symbol from several angles. (1) Another symbol enables us to observe the spiritual meaning of 1 Cor. 11 and does not contradict Paul's two arguments (justification in nature and in the traditions of society). If we are forced to choose between the spirit of Scripture and the letter, it is wiser to follow the spirit. (2) Christian doctrine, taken as a whole, does not propose to follow symbols for the sake of symbols. The New Testament writers teach not rituals and forms, but reality and content. (3) In my opinion, the reason why head covering was used by the early church is that this tradition already existed in society and, like the rite of baptism, could easily acquire additional meaning. The doctrine of the hierarchy of leadership (God - Christ - husband) is formulated by Paul using the word "head" in a figurative sense ("leader"). Coated symbol "heads" in its direct meaning could have been born precisely because of the lexical connection. But if a symbol no longer expresses what it once symbolized, the essence should not change (i.e., whatever symbol a woman wears, it should indicate her subordination to her husband and/or [if single] male church leaders). (4) An analogy with the rite of breaking bread can help and will be appropriate, because There are many symbols in the Eucharist and its celebration is also one of the traditions transmitted by Paul (1 Cor. 11:17 ff.). The symbols of wine and unleavened bread are taken directly from the Jewish Passover ritual. In the first century, Passover celebrations included four cups of wine, lamb, bitter herbs, and unleavened bread. The part of the meal that Jesus took for the rite of breaking bread was the third cup of Passover and unleavened bread. The absence of leaven was an important attribute, as it symbolized the sinlessness of Christ. And of course there was real wine. Is it necessary for us today to use unleavened bread and real wine? In some churches it is mandatory, in others it is not. However, some churches would be horrified if real wine were required to be served in communion. Very few churches use unleavened bread (salt crackers actually contain yeast). Will we anathematize these churches because they have broken with tradition - a tradition that has both historical and biblical roots? If following such an important tradition as the breaking of bread can have variations, then shouldn’t we give the much less important tradition about the special role (and style of vestment) for women a little freedom in implementation?

On the second question: if we are no longer so much concerned about the symbol itself as what it symbolizes, then what symbol should we use today? There is no universal answer to this, simply because if we talk about a “symbol with meaning,” we must recognize that social traditions change. If we canonize one symbol—especially one found in the Bible—we risk elevating oral tradition to the level of Scripture and making the gospel external and ritualistic. Each local church should work to find a suitable symbol in our time. True, if you (and your church) agree with what I am suggesting here, church leaders will have to get together, sketch ideas together, and approach the problem creatively. I'd love to hear what you come up with!

However, we do have some guidelines. The symbol should convey as much content and symbolism from 1 Cor. 11, as much as possible. Some have suggested the use of a wedding ring as an acceptable symbol. This symbol has several significant advantages. It is accepted in a wide segment of our society. A woman will not feel awkward while wearing an engagement ring. It clearly shows that she is married to her husband and conveys well the message of 1 Cor. 11:9 (co-dependency!). However, this symbol has several disadvantages. A ring will not work for several reasons: (1) a wedding ring means that the text of 1 Cor. 11 only talks about married women; (2) this symbol is not only feminine; married men also wear rings; and (3) unlike the head covering, the ring is not a very visible symbol.

What symbols are still available to us? At this time - and I emphasize the temporary nature of the situation - I think wearing a modest dress would be an appropriate symbol. Such a symbol does not correspond in every way to the passage of Scripture, but it does justice to many aspects of it. In particular - and this is the most important thing - a woman who dresses provocatively (too much emphasizing femininity) or pushes the boundaries of decency in another direction (for example, by wearing jeans or a business suit) often does not have internal submission and does not show it through her behavior. That is why such a symbol corresponds to the theological content very precisely.

I hope and pray that this work will not offend any of the readers too much. First and foremost, I always strive to be faithful to Scripture. Secondly, I strive to be sensitive to real people with real needs. Some might argue that my approach is not biblical enough; others will say that I don't keep up with the times. If someone disagrees with my position, great. But to convince me to change my mind, it is necessary to refute the exegesis presented. I may be wrong in my interpretation, but I have to see it. No matter how much I sympathize with the feminist movement (and I am impressed by it much), I cannot betray my conscience or my understanding of Scripture. I am open to other points of view on this text, but will not change my opinion simply based on argumentation ad hominem. Every believer must be convinced of his position on the basis of Scripture; no one should depart from what the Bible teaches simply because his view is unpopular. The real danger, as I see it, is that Christians simply ignore what this text says because any form of obedience to it is inconvenient.

Translator's Notes: Verse 16 in some versions of the Bible reads like this: “And if anyone wanted to argue, then we have no other such practice, and neither do the churches of God.” NET: If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice , nor do the churches of God.

Note Transl.: Probably Leon Morris.

Note Transl.: Mishnah is part of the Talmud. Psachim chapter 8, Mishnah 6: “for the one who grieves and the one who resolves the collapse, and also for the one who was promised to be released from prison, for the sick and elderly who are able to eat cazaite, Passover is cut. They don’t cut them all separately for all of them - suddenly Passover will be brought to a state of unsuitability. Therefore, if something happened to them that made them unfit, they are exempt from celebrating Pesach Sheini - except for the one who clears the collapse, who is unclean from the very beginning."

Note translation: in Russian Synodal translation The Bible omits the word “custom” in this place.

In addition to verses 2 and 16, there are several other theological arguments within the passage itself that point to the need for strictness in the implementation of Paul's tradition of covering the head. See discussion below.

J. B. Hurley. Man and Woman—A Biblical View (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1981), pp. 170-171. / J. B. Hurley, Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981) 170-71.

Com. trans.: Although Numbers does not have the adjective “ἀκατακάλυπτος”, it uses the noun “ἀποκάλυψις” [apokalupsis] - i.e. same root, but with different prefixes, which means “opening, exposing, uncovering, removing the veil.” In addition, in Numbers. 5:18 and Lev. 13:45 in Hebrew - the same verb (פרע).

Liddell-Scott-Jones Lexicon LSJ also gives the meaning "uncovered"

Given the above arguments against the "veil" being "long hair," we believe that Scripture teaches a literal covering of the head. It is necessary to separate, however, the issue of literal interpretation and how to apply it today.

If I may be allowed, I would like to add a personal observation. Much of the feminist view that dominates modern evangelical churches is driven by a simplified view of the Trinity (I suspect that the church's reaction to the proliferation of cults in the nineteenth century, which weakened some theological beliefs, played a significant role in this). Evangelical churches stand firmly on the ontological equality of the Son with the Father. But to find doctrinal positions - in churches or in seminaries - in which the Son would be shown functionally subordinates Father, it's not that easy. At the same time, in In. 14:28, Phil. 2:6-11, 1 Cor. 11:3, 15:28 we find clear teaching about eternal subordination of the Son (John 14 and 1 Cor. 11 speaks of subordination in present tense; Phil. 2 – in the eternal past; 1 Cor. 15 – in the eternal future). Since these same books affirm the unconditional ontological equality of the Son and the Father, the subordination must be functional or role.

I assume that the requirement was limited to women praying or prophesying, although some who hold this opinion also believe that there is no such restriction. See discussion above.

It must be kept in mind that a hat is not a covering for the head. The function of a hat is to highlight the beauty of a woman, which is rather closer to the function of hair. The covering of the head, on the contrary, should hide the glory of the woman.

We have not touched upon whether this text applies to married or unmarried women. This will have to be left for another occasion. It is enough to just say that "γυνή" [gunE] in Greek means "woman" (as opposed to "wife"), unless the context indicates otherwise.

I don't mean that women can't wear jeans! Rather, my point is that in some parts of America, for example, for a woman to wear jeans to a church service is tantamount to disrespecting the authorities of the church. In the north-west, jeans are worn by local dandies - this is almost the most decent clothing, even on Sundays (my brother has dressy jeans and casual jeans...) Probably, in that region a different symbol is needed. If men have difficulty coming up with a good symbol that women will accept, women should be invited to participate in the choice. This issue requires productive dialogue between men and women. Whatever symbol is found, it should not be humiliating. Its function is simply to show due submission.

The irony is that today long hair can mean the same thing as a modest dress. It is not uncommon for women to cut their hair short to be treated like men. Therefore, although the symbol in Paul's day was not hair, perhaps some churches will decide that wearing one's hair a certain way will be the appropriate symbol. This symbol does have a few drawbacks. For example, the contrast between verses 10 and 15 will be blurred. And having long hair—or even certain long hair styles—doesn't always convey the message of submission. Moreover, women who are forced to wear short hair for many different reasons will be excluded from public ministry. Hair length may depend on climate or age. Since hair grows better when young, if the symbol is long hair, young and less mature women will be more likely to participate in public service than older and more mature people.

At the same time, someone might argue that in this symbol the association with the “head” is completely lost. But in the text of Scripture the head symbolizes power. It is unwise to insist on a certain symbol because it corresponds to another character, if as a result of substitution the main meaning disappears. Such persistence is akin to pharisaism.