HEADCOVERING FOR WOMEN by Zac Poonen

I respect brother Zac tremendously, but diagree lovely with his interpretation of this. I think he misses the principle of this passage.
"""Some say that the hair itself is called the head-covering for women in 1 Cor.11:15. If one has understood the Divine principle taught in the first 14 verses of this chapter, then this verse will not cancel out the need for a woman with long hair to still cover her head with a covering. Paul could not possibly have taken 15 verses merely to teach that a woman should have long hair! That could have been stated in just one sentence! What does not come out in the English translation of the Bible is the fact that in the original Greek language (in which Paul wrote his letters), the Holy Spirit prompted him to use a different Greek word for "covering" in verse 15 than the one He used in verse 6. The Greek word used in verse 6 is katakalupto; whereas the word used in verse 15 is peribolaion (which is translated as "mantle" in Heb. 1:12). This makes it crystal clear that the mantle of hair referred to in verse 15 is not the head-covering referred to in verse 6 or in the rest of the chapter. Another proof of this is: If hair is the "head-covering" being referred to in this section, then every man who prays or prophesies would have to have his head completely shaved, if he is to obey this Scripture that tells him not to have his head covered!! The clear teaching of the Holy Spirit in this chapter is that the "mantle of hair" that nature has given a woman as her glory must be covered with a covering, when she is praying or prophesying.""

The principle is not submission through outward appearance, but rather submission in the Holy Spirit to God given authority and structure(New Covenant). The context of the passage is the Church at Corinth having a difficult time seperating itself from it's pagan culture, so that is why Paul is writing this. I've heard Zac preach on this before and was in much of agreement with him until he wrote off verse 15, and didn't get to the principle of the passage which I already stated. russ

One of the best articles I have come across on this topic. Well explained, easy to understand. I see God's intention in for man and women consistent with his attributes and character.

Thanks for positing this, Greg.

Interesting article. I would like to share a few observations.

The head-covering as taught here in 1Corinthians is not a weather garment. It is a covering designed for one particular purpose: to be obedient to the command and principles outlined there. There are males who do wear a religious head-covering - the Orthodox Jewish men, the Catholic bishops. These are not for protection from the weather. As I understand this scripture one is to not confuse the two.

I know of no one who does wear it 24/7 although some may. But those who are devoted to the Word will wear it during waking hours.

I wish Zac would have explored the ministry of angels and the principle of having power on her head. These two principles are so powerful...they go beyond logic.

My personal experience is that it is a huge blessing.

God bless.

It is very sad that you think that, Greg.

May God help you to surrender your rigid stance and judgmentalism.

Headcoverings are not a sign of anything internally and you should know that.

Nothing you can wear on the outside determines whether you have a submissive heart.

Sad, that you think and judge a lot of sisters are in disobedience.

I am sure many sisters wish being submissive was as easy as putting on a doilie.

I wish it were, too. I'd take a shower with a hat on.

Sisters should not feel condemned and should reject this legalistic teaching.

My wife and I have spoken about this at length several times. While she appreciates those who are obedient to how they interpret that particular passage of Scripture in I Corinthians, she simply doesn't interpret it to mean that women must wear a piece of cloth upon their head. She has explained that, for her, wearing it would be solely out of obedience to the standard of someone else rather than being obedient to what she believes to be the direction of God.

I am not sure what to make of the thought of a compulsory command to wear a particular garment. I understand where some say that it is an "outward sign of inward obedience." However, the same can be said of circumcision. As a member of the circumcision, I can testify that it has little to do with the heart. There are plenty of men who are circumcised on the outside but dead on the inside as they live for themselves. Similarly, I have known several women who wore head coverings who lacked propriety in other areas...including deference to both God and their husbands.

It might be an outward sign; but, as such, it can profit as little as a painting of a apple would provide any nutritional value.

While I cherish the messages shared by Brother Poonen, I do disagree with his conclusion on this matter. I do not feel that we are bound to any sort of outward display of holiness such as a physical garment. We are commanded to live a holy life as God commands. However, as my wife sincerely said, this would amount to obeying a man rather than as led by the Lord out of obedience with a clear conscience. However, we hold those who feel such a need with respect, and I wouldn't have any problem with someone in ministry who holds such a view.

Chris,

That was very, very well said! Remember, Zac is just a man and may be influenced by his culture in this respect. That does not negate any of his other teachings and many of them are very fine.

Sarah

Sarah, where do you think Zac got the inspiration to write the article he did?

Just for the sake of making my point, I will not share what my position is about head-covering.

Here is what I have observed:

- Greg posted an article about head-covering because he felt we needed to learn something from God's Word.

- Some people agreed with his position, others didn't.

- Some who agreed with Greg gave their additional comments.

- On the other hand, some who disagreed with Greg swiftly threw off the gloves. There was no love in their comments, although they claim that they are in the right.

Now, I have observed that many on this forum tend to get ugly when someone writes something that they disagree with. Let me give this exhortation: "Instead of just attacking the poster, you should make a good case from God's Word. If truth is on your side, you will not need to attack, nor call names. If truth is not on your side, you should submit to God."

For instance, in another discussion about speaking in tongues, after sharing my position, I saw two different reactions:
1) If I remember correctly, it was Appolus who respectfully disagreed with me and gave his position in a godly way. "Chapeau" to him. Praise the Lord for such brothers.
2) Someone who shall remain unnamed just tried to intimidate me by sending me a condescending private message. When I asked him to give Scriptural backing for his position, he simply ignored it, and refused to confess his sin and humble himself when I challenged him about his unloving attitude. To this day, he has still to repent.

Now, this kind of behavior is not uncommon. I plead with everyone to not give room to the devil. The Bible says that the man of God should be "kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness" (2 Timothy 2:24-25). Please give consideration to the way you react to a brother's convictions.

Now, I understand that some people may be upset at me for writing this, so please send me an e-mail at plr777@hotmail.com, and I would be more than happy to discuss the issue in a polite, loving, and humble manner. I am not in to "get" anybody. I just care about honoring God and felt this needed to be addressed.

Love in Christ Jesus,
Renoncer

Hi Renouncer,

I hope that you didn't take offense to my post. I had hoped that my words were shared with gentleness and in true humility.

Issues like this can often be divisive because people have their own prayerful conclusions about the issue. Like many issues, people can easily "react" to either the manner by which the disagreement is shared or to the differing conclusion itself (or both).

Still, this issue can be discussed with respectful disagreement (as you mentioned). I disagree with the conclusion of Brother Poonen, but I respect him and anyone else who holds a differing view with a clear conscience. I think that it is good to avoid any presumptuous assumption that those with whom we have a differing conclusion about this are "less spiritual" or "lacking light" on the matter.

ccchhhrrriiisss,
Your response is exemplary. I pray that others may follow your example.

In Christ,
Renoncer

This is exactly what our enemy wants people. A division right before the conference. Dont give into it. None of us agree 100% on everything. So, why this now?

So, let's turn our eyes upon Jesus and not give in to the devil in division.

I do not like to disagree with so eminent a teacher as Zac Poonen, but there are some instances in this message covered above that are not quite accurate according to the original meaning and intention.

The word for ‘covering’ is [kata] or [katakalupto], which means to cover wholly, as with a veil or head scarf.
2619
katakaluptw
katakalupto
kat-ak-al-oop'-to
from kata - kata 2596 and kaluptw - kalupto 2572; to cover wholly, i.e. veil:--cover, hide.

When the correct meaning as used (1st Corinthians, 11:4-6) with women is accurate, and particularly in reference to public prayer and prophesying by a woman. The requirement for wearing such a covering in Temple or synagogue is to show the true deference to the man who covers her, whether her father, her husband, or in the case of a widow, Yeshua.

1 Corinthians 11

1. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
2. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6. 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 shaven, let her be covered.
7. 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.
8. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

The word angels is a KJV distortion of the word [aggelos], being made out to be [angelos] because the pronunciation of aggelos sounds like angelos. In the use of the katakalupto [kataggelos], the meaning becomes to proclaim, preach, and teach. I won’t go into the obvious point about a woman preaching or teaching, as that is another kettle of worms entirely. My point is about men covering their heads when they preach, teach, and evangelize.

2605
kataggellw
kataggello
kat-ang-gel'-lo
from kata - kata 2596 and the base of aggeloV - aggelos 32; to proclaim, promulgate:--declare, preach, shew, speak of, teach.

11. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

The reason for the head covering, in public, for a woman not to distract a man from her words by the beauty of her hair, and the sensual connotations that went with that ornament, then thought of as a woman’s most glorious physical feature, and to be shown only within her family, and particularly in intimacy with her husband. To not wear it in Temple or Synagogue would be downright offensive to the body, whether speaking or not in prayer or prophecy.

Therefore for a man to wear such a covering, a down drooping and face covering veil, such as Dominican Monks still wear to this day, covering the whole head, and being pulled forward to completely shadow or keep from view their face, is considered wrong as a type of cross dressing. However for a man to wear no head covering at all when speaking publicly is in complete disregard for the commandment given directly to Moses by YHVH at the burning bush.

In the wilderness of Caanan and any Mediterranean country, to go without a head covering as normal part of clothing is downright dangerous, and generally referred to a head cloth, or turban, often covered by the outer garment, a full length shawl, to provide a measure of shade in the heat.

However, for a man to not take into consideration whether wearing the garb of a servant of Yeshua, which any servant in the first century wore, which was a small, wrapped head covering to denote servitude, being under the obedience of the man in headship over him, but also to be bare foot as a sign of submission to YHVH.

In Temple or Synagogue the ritual hand washings and foot washings were done before entering the Temple or Synagogue proper, that treading on sacred ground would be in a righteous statement of man to YHVH, even as YHVH told Moses, not to uncover his head, but to bare his feet, before Moses was to approach the burning bush.

Exodus 3

1. Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.
2. And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
3. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
4. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
5. And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy
ground.

As men and women in Yeshua are priests and kings (Our High Priest Yeshua wearing the Crown as our High Priest, are , if you will not take the mitre (as the Pope does, and all Bishops in Yeshua are all priests before YHVH, one should wear the garb of a the High Priest, and at the leaste Catholic Litergy), one should, if you are requiring women to keep customs that are from another epoch, as is just and traditional, yet not in conflict with the Torah, then men also should wear the kippah, or a cap or hat, when at Temple or Synagogue.

Exodus 29

4. And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water.
5. And thou shalt take the garments, and put upon Aaron the coat, and the robe of the ephod, and the ephod, and the breastplate, and gird him with the curious girdle of the ephod:
6. And thou shalt put the mitre upon his head, and put the holy crown upon the mitre.

“If we reject any command in any of the New Testament epistles, saying it was only for the time and place when it was written and not for us today, then in order to be consistent, we must give equal freedom to other people to reject other commands in the epistles and in the teachings of Jesus as also being only for that time and not for us today. For example, we must, in that case, give freedom to people to teach that forbidding homosexual behavior and same-sex marriages and divorces and premarital sexual intercourse, etc., were only for the first century and not for us today. Otherwise we will be inconsistent.

It is inconsistent, therefore, to say that every command in the New Testament is relevant for us today, and then to reject just this one command to women to cover their heads when they pray or prophesy (1 Cor.11:1-16).”

“1 Corinthians 11:16 says that every church that is a church of God, will insist on this head covering for women when they pray or prophesy. The Holy Spirit recognized that 20 centuries later this would become a controversial issue; and so He made Paul to state (in this same verse) that if anyone was going to be argumentative about this matter, he would not argue with such a person. He would just allow that person to continue on in his/her disobedience and inconsistency."

I myself have no objection to going head covered, and barefoot before speaking or praying in the house of YHVH, only that the fullness of the traditions that are not against the Torah being carried forward to do honor to YHVH are done by both sexes.

Something to consider.

Q

Various thoughts have been shared concerning this issue. I now have a question: would any be willing to listen to the spiritual, practical benefits one experiences in wearing a head covering? Yes? or No? (This would be largely testimonial.)

yes ginnyrose i would be very interested in hearing, after reading this post i am considering wearing a head covering . i would love you to share this with us please. Im still unsure wether it is something you should wear only in church and when praying with others or if it should be worn all the time, could you help me a little with this please.