I felt led to share this information on my site after being contacted by several people. Others were interested in the information that gave me the peace I needed to stop wearing the veil. I spent so much time studying, and praying about the veiling, that it became near and dear to me. I went into it with much pain, seeking of the Lord and with a broken heart. I came out of it filled with insight, peace, and renewed faith. I won't go into an Old Testament study because if I did this would be excessively long. If you were to think about it for a moment, in order to follow an OT example of veiling you'd have to wear one that covers the head, neck, shoulders, and face! I will be talking about 1 Cor. 11, which many use as "proof" that a woman should wear a covering, some establish doctrine for it from this one passage. To call something a doctrine based on a single passage is not very wise, even if we are very sure what it means. It should be supported by other scriptures. Whenever God dealt with us on something important He always mentions it more then once in scripture. Please understand I am not claiming to be "right", but am offering a different way of seeing these verses. Everyone should study, seek, and make up their own minds. I happen to believe that wearing the veil for a year brought wonderful, positive changes to my heart. However, I fail to see where it is doctrinally commanded for a woman to wear one.

1 Cor 11:3 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.
Here Paul is not establishing, but reiterating what has already been established by God and Jesus. 1. The head of the woman is man--...and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.(Gen 3:16) 2&3 The head of man is Christ and the head of Christ is God---All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. (John6:37-38)

1 Cor. 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
First off, the word translated "covered" here does not refer to any kind of covering, literal or figurative. It is NOT the same Greek word used in the rest of the passage. It is the word kata , a primary particle (a preposition) meaning "down". The word kata means down in "time, place, and relation". The feeling is that it is a description of being "down" or "under" in relation to a person. Who would be that person? Lets keep looking. (Paul was not referring to the "mitre" or cap that the Jewish men wore, Paul and even Jesus would have worn one when in Temple in obedience to Ex 28:40-43 and others. Different word used) If you use the literal translation of "down" and not a figurative "covered" we get help in finding the meaning of this verse, 1 Cor 11:4, which would you think? If a man should pray with his head down, or covered, does he dishonor his head (skull) or does he dishonor his head (Lord)? Paul said in 1 Cor 10:31 ...whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. and then 1 Cor 11:3 says, ...the head of the woman is the man; You can see that we are dealing with more then meanings for the word head than just "skull", and this one probably means his "Lord". What if, when the man prays, he is down under someone instead of something? Would he then be dishonoring his Lord since we know there is, ..one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Tim 2:5? It would be a shame for a man to be under someone when he prays, especially in church. Lets keep looking.

1 Cor 11: 5-6: But every woman that prayeth or prophesith with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were 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 shaven, let her be covered.
Ok, so is it a cloth or the God given covering, her husband? Look at verse 1Cor 14:34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Uh, oh. Few people like these verses. Even many who wear a "head covering" don't like to hear them. You can't discount them just because you don't like them. (o: So how can a woman pray or prophesy while remaining silent? Compare the two verses and lets look at a third to help, Abimelech tells Sarah that ;he (Abraham) is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all others: thus she was reproved. What was it she needed reproving on? She should have remained under her "covering" in such a manner that the whole situation would have been avoided. So how would a woman prophesy, remain silent in church and remain under her covering? Whatever she says, her husband says for her. Oh I know that idea will stir up some anger, but I certainly believe doing that takes a much more submissive spirit then wearing a piece of cloth. Ok, what about being shaved? Look at verse 5 again. Paul is saying it is a shame for a woman to be shaven or shorn. If a woman is to step out on her own and out from under her covering (her husband) and speak on her own, thereby dishonoring her head (husband), she might as well have the men’s haircut too. If that's a shame, then she needs to remain covered by her husband AND keep silent too.

Remember the Greeks were a proud, liberal church. They probably did not sit like the Jews did with partitions separating the men from the women. The Corinthians were being divisive and contentious, there were problems with out bursts from the women. Paul wasn't trying to lay down clothing requirements! He was trying to bring sanity back to a bunch of unruly new Christians.

1 Cor 11: 7-9 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 the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
I love this verse!Paul was stressing again that it is the woman that needs someone over her head, not the man. The part For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man means that the man is not part of the woman's family that she should speak for the family (both of them), but the woman is part of the mans family that he should speak for them. Remember in the OT , (Numbers 30:13.) according to scriptures man has control over even her vows, not because of a cloth she wears but because she was created for the man .

1 Cor 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Oh boy, this one small verse I can spend two days on. *ugh* Ok first off the Greek word "exousia" here is translated "power" and is used extensively throughout the NT. It is also translated as "authority", they are used interchangeably. Nevertheless, whether one translates it “power or authority" it never one time in scripture connotes a token, symbol or sign. Interpretation of scripture should agree with other scriptures. Every where else it signifies "real" power, "real" authority, or a "real" authority figure (person). I wouldn't dare say that in this lone passage it means a cloth symbol. Next is the word "epi" which is translated "on". The primary meaning is "over" and it's often translated that way throughout the NT. The verse is saying that a woman should have her head covered by her "authority", him over her, not a cloth. Next is the angels. We need to know what that word "angels" means before we can give a complete interpretation to the verse. The word used is "aggelos" and is translated either "angel" or "messenger" In the NT it is translated both ways, the translators choosing the safest literal translation. There are passages where it could only mean a human messenger , like with John the Baptist, or Jesus' disciples. Other times it clearly means a heavenly or spiritual messenger. In 1 Cor.11:10 we can not make assumptions, but through our knowledge of the Word, know the context. Messengers receive messages from and deliver messages to someone. Who would that be in this verse? A woman is to have authority over her head because of the messengers. The messages are to be received by her "covering" (husband) and sent by that "covering". This separates the weaker vessel from the messengers. The man speaks for the family. Abimelech told Sarah that Abraham was to be to her ...a covering of the eyes (not her eyes, but theirs) unto all that are with thee, and all others Gen. 20:16. If Sarah had not been communicating with the messengers, they wouldn't have been able to send word back of her beauty. Men often take far too lightly the job of protector. The Corinthians must have done so too.

But if any man seem contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
Paul just forbid any contention from the women in the church by informing them that they are not even supposed to speak. Nothing important is stated once, and a bit further on in the same letter Paul restates, 1 Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience The word "hupotasso" here, translated obedience, means to "be put under" or "be subject to". We continually keep coming back to the issue of position, not clothing. Paul says again in 1 Tim 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. That had always been the custom with the Jews. If I were to paraphrase verse 16, "If any of you Greek men want to argue about it, all I can tell you is that we have no such custom of allowing women to talk out in church, and neither do the churches of God."

Now this can lead us into a study about women teaching, which they should! Titus 2:3-4. One on one, to children or other women, not in place of the head of her household. I am not meaning to dismiss the sincerity of the heart of those who believe they are doing what is pleasing to God by wearing a veil. I have heard many arguments FOR wearing one, and can understand why some one could believe it necessary. I just believe God is much more interested in a woman actually obeying her husband, and being under his authority then in her wearing a piece of cloth. A woman could wear a veil and be insincere, thus making the "symbol" a lie. A true submissive spirited woman who stays "under" her husband speaks much louder then a piece of material could. If God wanted to address a type of clothing for submissive women, why didn't He here?
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 1 Peter 3:1-4.
If a piece of specific apparel were required to communicate the testimony of the believing wife, surely it would be mentioned? It clearly mentions the non-importance of apparel. There are several things that should be dealt with in order for us to positively conclude that 1 Cor. 11 does not means headgear, rather it refers to authority. One is that it is a lone passage not backed up by other scripture. While authority is. Jesus never mentioned it, though He did mention every other important doctrinal concept (including headship). God the Father established headship without clothes. Three different Greek words all translated as some form of "covering". Men prayed with their heads covered. Women should be silent in church, and subject to their heads there. Was Paul empowered to make or disperse doctrine on his own? In one verse, a woman's hair is her physical covering while in another it's NOT.

I believe there are too many problems with the logic that a headship veiling is a doctrine or needed symbol. I do believe that wearing one can be a powerful thing. Possible of changing a woman’s heart toward her husband and her Lord. Every woman should prayerfully consider where her heart lays, whether or not she accepts the role she has in her family as clearly stated by God’s Word.

I hope this is helpful to some. I don't desire to step on toes, unless it's God speaking to you! (o: Take care, and may God bless us as we seek His Word.

New! A link to another article speaking on this passage.Click here