Colornial Messianic Israel Assembly

nav.gif

T E A C H I N G . . .

Headcoverings for Messianic Men: Tradition or Torah?

By

Rabbi Edward Levi Nydle
and edited by
Devon Tassen

There has been in recent months much controversy over "head-coverings" for men in Messianic Congregations.Some claim it is only tradition dictated by the Talmud or Jewish tradition, and others, like I, believe that it is permitted-if not commanded by Yahweh for men to be covered in prayer and worship. This is a Scriptural word study from the Hebrew and Greek in the
Torah and Brit Chadasha to make the "case" for the head covering. Let me make it very clear: IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A KIPPAH AS SUCH BUT SOME TYPE OF CAP OR HAT FOR A MAN WOULD FIT THE REQUIREMENT.

In The Beginning

Let us go back to the Beginning (Beresheet) 1:26 when Yahweh created man in His likeness and image. Originally man was covered with Yahwehs garment of light or kavod (glory) for excellency and splendour as proclaimed in Tehillim 104:1-2. "You [Yahweh] have put on excellency and splendour, covering Yourself with light as a garment.." We know this because there are
two Hebrew words used for "naked" in Beresheet.Before the fall of man the word arom is used in Gen.2: 25 meaning a partially naked state. AFTER the fall in Gen.3: 7 the word erom is used in the Hebrew meaning nudity or complete nakedness. Something happened to man after he fell. He lost the "covering" he had from Yahweh in creation. Yahweh clothed them in a
substitute covering in Gen.3: 21 that He provided.

Right now we are in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom.8: 3) and not Yahweh. We are no longer perfect as Yahweh commanded us to be (Matt.5: 48) because of the fall. ONLY YAHSHUA IS NOW IN THE TRUE IMAGE AND LIKENESS OF YAHWEH (1 Cor.11: 7; 1 Cor.15: 49; Rom.8: 29). At the resurrection we shall be born again into His image and likeness as
a son of Elohim-the ONLY TRUE RIGHTEOUS ONE, after putting off this sinful, corruptible flesh and putting on the incorruptible body like Yahshuas.

Moshe Our Example

Moshe Rabainu is one of our examples in the Torah.In Shemot 3:4-5, Yahweh commanded him to remove his shoes as he was on set-apart ground. Moshe being a shepherd in the desert of Midian surely wore some type of covering over his head to protect him from the blistering sun and heat, yet Yahweh NEVER commanded him to remove any head covering in His
presence.

After the Exodus from Egypt Yahweh told Moshe to set-apart the first-born as Kohenim (priests) to Him (Ex.13: 1-2,19:3-24,24:4-8). This changed after the "golden calf" incident and Yahweh chose the sons of Lewi to be the Kohenim as the "First-born" had sinned against him. They disqualified themselves from the office of Kohen by idol worship. Yahweh
commanded them to REMOVE the "ornaments" from them by Mt.Horev. This word is adiy or finery, trappings, headstall or headpiece. By stripping them of their "headpieces" Yahweh removed them from their office as Kohenim. The "glory, honor, and splendour"was removed from them and given to the tribe of Lewi.The Aaronic or Levitcal priesthood was commissioned to minister directly to Yahweh in the Mishkan (Tabernacle) Shemot 28:1;Bemidbar 8:16.

Priesthood Garments

The priestly garments were given to the priests and Lewites for "esteem (glory) and for comeliness (beauty)" Shemot 28:2. We also read in Yeshayahu 61:3-7, ".. the garment of praiseand YOU [Yisrael-all of Yisrael not just the Lewites] shall be called PRIESTS OF YAHWEH, SERVANTS OF OUR ELOHIM shall be said to you..instead of your shame and reproach [or nakedness-Rabbi Ed] they rejoice a second time in their portion" In the Kingdom of Yahweh all Yisrael shall be priests to
Yahweh as He said in Shemot 19:6. I believe these are the Sons of Tzadok (righteousness) in Yechezqel 44:15and Revelation 20: 6. According to the Brit Chadasha we are all priests NOW (1 Kepha 2:5;Rev.1: 6). Yahweh has provided for us, as Kohenim, garments to cover our nakedness or shame in order to reflect His esteem (glory), splendour, and comeliness (beauty)- the tallit and head covering.

Turbans or Bonnets

Shemot 29:9 and 39:28 uses the word turban or bonnet as a part of the commanded garments of the Kohen.

TURBAN-#4021; migbaah: from #1389 a CAP (as a hemispherical) bonnet. The HEMI-means half, SPHERE means globe, ball, round. Hence the migbaah was shaped as a half a ball. It comes from #1389 -gibah meaning a hillock, hill, little hill.
Now #1389 comes from #1387 -Geba which comes from #1375-GeBiYa an unused root meaning to be convexed, a goblet, the calyx of a flower, cup, pot. The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Vol.1 page 532, tells us that, "the cap of the priest was a conical-shaped object of finely woven linen tied on the head of the priest as a SIGN of his investiture. The CAP was a distinctive item of the priestly vestments." Websters New World Dictionary says that convex means "a vaulted arch, curving outward like the surface of a sphere." Now, if we take two convexo-convex pieces of linen material and sew them together, you would have the exact, small hilled, convex cap every priest wore when they served Yahweh. You can see that this design would be very similar as the modern "kippah" now worn.

The mitre (or official turban) of the Kohen HaGadol is called a mitsnephet in Hebrew. According to Philo and Josephus it consisted of an ordinary priests cap with a turban of dark blue color over it. Josephus (Antiq.111.vii.3, 6) says that the headgear of the priests was seemed at the folds and so became a cap. Clarkes Commentary, Vol. 1, page 445 tells us that; " the mitsnephet comes from the root -to roll (tsanaph) or wrap around, it evidently means that covering of the head so UNIVERSAL in the Eastern countries which we call a turban which encompasses and binds the head.." . Note: only the High
Priest wore the Turban or mitre, while the regular priests wore the cap!

The Brit Chadasha tells us we are a set-apart priesthood offering up spiritual sacrifices to Yahweh (1 Kepha 2:5). Should we not have on some type of head covering as we minister as a priest before Yahweh?

Remember, this is a part of Torah not a tradition or Talmud.

It is interesting that, according to the Torah, the Kohen HaGadol could NEVER UNCOVER HIS HEAD EVEN IN MOURNING FOR THE DEAD (Lev.21: 10-11). Yahshua is now our High priest after the order of Malkitzedek (Ivrim 6-8;Tehillim 110:4-6). Surely He wears some type of head covering as our High Priest as he ministers in the heavenly Mishkan.

The Bridegroom

Yeshayahu 61:10 in the KJV says, ".. As a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments..". Here the word ornaments is pe er #6287 and means an embellishment, i.e. a fancy headdress, BEAUTY, goodly ornaments, tire, and bonnet. Note that this verse says that a bridegroom wears a head covering on His wedding day! Yahshua is coming back as a BRIDEGROOM to marry Yisrael. He will be wearing some type of fancy headcovering as the bridegroom!

King David

David the Melek Yisrael, a man after Yahwehs heart, worshipped with a head covering and his prayers were answered! In 2 Shemuel 15:30-37 David went up to the Mount of Olives (just as Yahshua did) weeping, barefoot, and having his head covered. And ALL the people covered their heads and went up weepingand David said, "O Yahweh, I PRAY YOU..".
David was seeking Yahwehs face and supplicating Him for help in a time of trouble. Yahweh answered Davids prayer. Therefore we know Yahweh hears us when we pray with our heads covered! That has never changed!

The Book of Daniel

Chananyah, Mishael, and Azraryah were three Yahudites taken captive in Babylon between 598-582 BCE. All the people of rank, laws, judgments, and proper dress codes were also taken to Babylon according to 2 Melakim 24:14. Daniel and these three Hebrews served in the court of Nebukadnetsar.They REFUSED to defile themselves with Babylonian ways! In Daniel 3:21, were told these three that REFUSED TO BOW TO THE BABYLONIAN GODS AND WAYS were thrown with their "TURBANS" on into the fire! We know the Babylonians also wore a headcovering in their daily life, AS DID THE YAHUDITES. The fact that they did, DOES NOT NEGATE THE USE OF HEAD COVERINGS FOR YISRAEL. We know in most Middle Eastern countries men do wear turbans or caps. The Yahudites carried this into the Babylonian exile. They did not pick it up there!

Yechezqel, who prophesied just before and after the captivity, was COMMANDED BY YAHWEH TO PUT A TURBAN ON HIS HEAD in Ezek.24: 15-17 and then he commanded all of them to do the same in verses 20-23!

Ephrayim Rejected!

Hoshea 4: 6 tells us that Yahweh rejected Yisrael as being a priest before Him because they forgot His Torah and HIS GLORY (ESTEEM) THEY CHANGED TO SHAME! Then He says -as for the priest it is for the people!

It is only when we as Messianic Yisrael embrace Yahshua as the Moshiach through belief, that we can requalify for the priesthood because of His righteousness. We wrap ourselves in His righteousness and His garment of Salvation .All Yisrael can be that nation of priests! We put that helmet of Salvation upon our head (Eph.6: 17). We are once again clothed in His esteem and splendour. The head covering and tallit are physical symbols and reminders of that righteousness. We can as a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD work righteousness (Ivrim 10:21-27). In effect we are TRAINING FOR REIGNING AS KOHENIM IN YAHWEHS KINGDOM TO COME!

Yahshua has qualified for the High Priesthood that had been removed from Yisrael by sin (Ezek.21: 21-27) and ALL YISRAEL, not just Lewi, can be priests after the order of Malkitzedek and sons of righteousness (Ivrim 7:24-28;Ezek.44). It is a superior priesthood (Ezek.44: 10-14) than the Levitical.In effect, they have been "demoted", but still are and will be priests.

What about 1 Corinthians 11:4?
Compiled by Daniel Botkin
edited by
Devon Tassen
Daniel Botkins full article may be seen @ www. ?

I CORINTHIANS 11:2-16

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 Messiah; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Messiah is Elohim.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, (2596)
Katakalupto down/vail dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (177) 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. (2619)
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover (2619) his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of Elohim: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 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.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in Yahweh.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of Elohim.
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto Elohim 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. (4018) peribolion as round the face.
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Most Bible-believers consider head covering one of the least important commandments, and perhaps they are right. There are certainly many things that are more vital to our faith than headcoverings. However, the subject requires attention because it is a practice that is ignored by all but a small minority of women.

PART I: VALIDITY OF THE HEADCOVERING SOME TYPICAL RESPONSES

Whenever the issue of the woman's headcovering is brought up, people often dismiss the practice in one of several ways.
There are some who simply ignore the subject because, they say, there are different ways to interpret the passage.
2.Others avoid further discussion by saying that the headcovering Paul refers to is just the hair itself, and not a scarf or shawl worn over the hair.
Many others insist that these instructions about headcovering applied only to the congregation in Corinth, and that the reasons for the headcovering were due to some local, cultural customs of the First Century that are irrelevant to Twentieth Century believers.
4.Some people dismiss the subject by saying that Elohim is concerned with what is in the heart, and the headcovering is merely an unimportant outward symbol.
5. Finally, there are some women who do not wear a headcovering simply because no other women in their congregation do it, and they fear they might project a "holier-than-thou" image by wearing a headcovering in a bareheaded congregation.
Let us now examine each of these five responses in detail, honestly and objectively.

RESPONSE #1: IGNORING THE SUBJECT

Those who say there are different ways to interpret 1 Corinthians 11 are right. Different people interpret this passage in different ways. There are different ways to interpret almost any passage of Scripture. However, this does not mean we should ignore a subject, especially when fifteen verses (half a chapter) are devoted to giving detailed explanations and instructions about a practice. A passage of instruction this lengthy should not be neglected by Elohim's people simply because there are different ways to interpret it.

Paul felt it was important enough to write about, and the Holy Spirit felt it was important enough to preserve as Scripture for the instruction of future generations, including ours. When people interpret Biblical instruction differently, the response most pleasing to Elohim is not to ignore it, but to seek the correct interpretation, and then humbly respond in cheerful obedience to the will of our Heavenly Father.

RESPONSE #2: THE WOMAN'S HAIR AS A
"COVERING"

Those who say that the only covering a woman needs is her hair base their conclusion on a statement near the end of the passage: "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory for her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (va.15).

There are three proofs that the hair cannot be the only covering Paul refers to, and certainly not the covering he refers to earlier in the passage.

PROOF A: TWO GREEK WORDS

First, the Greek word translated "covering" in this verse is peri-bo-la-ion, (4018) a word that is different from and unrelated to ka-ta-ka-lup-to, (2619) the "covering" spoken of in all the previous verses. If Paul had meant that the hair is the only covering a woman needs, he would have used the word ka-ta-ka-lup-to -- the term he uses all six times that the "covering" is mentioned in the preceding verses. But Paul does not write "her hair is given her for a ka-ta-ka-lup-to." He uses a totally different word, peri-bo-la-ion, when he tells us the hair is a "covering."
Paul switches to another term for a reason: He wants to make sure we do not confuse the woman's natural covering, her hair (peri-bo-la-ion), with the scarf or shawl (ka-ta-ka-lup-to) which she willingly places on her head.
This fact becomes even more apparent when we look at the meanings and uses of these two different Greek words.

Ka-ta-ka-lup-to, the word that refers to the covering a woman places on her head, is composed of the prefix kata-('down") and kalupto ("cover"). This is exactly what a scarf or shawl does -- it hangs down from the top of the head and covers the woman's hair.

Peri-bo-la-ion, the word that refers to the woman's hair as a natural "covering," uses the prefix peri- ("around," as in our English word perimeter). The long hair functions as a frame that flows around the perimeter or border of the woman's face.

The word peribolaion appears only twice in the New Testament, but it appears twelve times in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible which was used and quoted by New Testament trasnlaters. It is significant that the word peribolaion is used in Deut.22:12 to refer to the tallit, the four-cornered, fringed cloak worn by men. The translators was familiar with the Greek Septuagint, and most certainly was aware of the use of peribolaion to refer to the tallit. So when They writes that the woman's long hair is given to her anti (literally, -instead of") peribolaion, they are telling us this: the woman is given long hair to flow around her head and shoulders instead of the peribolaion/tallit, the four-cornered, fringed cloak that men are commanded to wear.4 Therefore, 1 Cor.11:15 is not saying that the hair is the only covering a woman needs. On the contrary, it is saying that the hair is not a substitute for the katakalupto (scarf or shawl), but it is given to the woman to wear instead of the peribolaion/tallit.

Verse 15 also points out that Elohim uses the woman's naturally long hair to show that He expects the woman to cover her head with a scarf or shawl, and He uses the man's absence of long hair to show that the man should not be covered with a scarf or shawl hanging down over his head like a woman.5 This is why Paul appeals to nature in the preceding verse ("Does not even nature itself teach you?").

PROOF B: CUTTING OFF THE HAIR

A second proof that the hair is not the only covering a woman needs is found in the statement Paul makes in verse six: "For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off."
If Paul meant that the woman's only headcovering were the hair itself, this verse would be saying, "If a woman does not have hair on her head, let her also have her hair cut off."
It is linguistically impossible to say that the woman's headcovering is nothing more than her hair. If the hair were the only "covering," then an "uncovered" woman would be a woman who already had her "hair cut off." An already hairless woman cannot be commanded to have her hair cut off. It would be like saying, "Let the bald man get a haircut" or "Let the beardless man shave his beard."
What verse six means is this: if the woman refuses to wear a scarf or shawl, she should also remove the natural covering, her hair. In other words, she should wear both coverings or none at all.

Watchman Nee comments on this verse with these strong words:
"Today people keep neither of these two commands of the Bible.
If a sister will not cover her hair but shears or shaves it, she may yet be reckoned as hearkening to the words of the Bible.
But today woman neither shaves nor covers her hair -- a double isobedience.7

PROOF C: BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC EVIDENCE

One final proof which shows that the headcovering is more than the hair is the fact that women did, indeed, wear scarves or shawls on their heads in Biblical times. The Encyclopedia Judaica tells us that "the general custom was to appear in public, and in the presence of strange men, with covered hair."8
We know from both the Bible and the Talmud that this is true. In Numbers 5:18, we are told that a woman suspected of being unfaithful to her husband was to have her head uncovered by the priest.9
This tells us that a woman's normal clothing in Biblical times included a headcovering, for how else could the priest "uncover the woman's head"? We see from this passage that a woman's uncovered head marks her as one suspected of being unfaithful to her husband. Today's modern culture may attach no meaning at all to an uncovered head, but from a Biblical viewpoint, it represents suspicion of unfaithfulness.
This is why Paul says, "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to Elohim with head uncovered?" (1Cor.11:13).
Paul expects the answer to be obvious (at least to those familiar with the meaning of an uncovered head).
The woman with an uncovered head, Paul says, "disgraces her head [i.e., her husband]" (rs.5).

RESPONSE #3: FIRST CENTURY CORINTHIAN CUSTOM

Because the headcovering is not mentioned in any other New Testament epistle, some say that the only women who needed to cover their heads were those in Corinth, perhaps due to some local to the Corinthians, but also to "all who in every place call upon the name of Yahshua HaMoshiakh" (1 Cot.l:2).
Furthermore, he ends the passage on headcoverings with these words: "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we [i.e., we Apostles] have no other practice, nor have the churches [plural] of Elohim" (1Cor.11:16).11
In other words, it was a universal custom in all the congregations, and not even open to dispute. If someone wanted to be contentious, Paul wrote,
arguing about it was not allowed. It was a non-negotiable custom that all believers in all places were expected to practice. The reason headcovering is not mentioned in any other epistle is because correction was not needed in the other congregations. It was only the women in Corinth who refused to follow the Apostles' instructions about covering the head.
Some believers today will admit that headcoverings were worn not only in Corinth, but in all congregations, when Paul wrote his epistle. But, they say, the reason had to do with time, not place -- it was just a First Century custom. For some reason unknown to us, it was considered improper for a woman to be bareheaded. But since society thinks nothing of bareheaded women today, they say, it is no longer important. It was only important then, because it was the custom of that time.

The above reasoning is flawed for a very simple reason: it overlooks the fact that the Bible plainly states the two reasons for the headcovering, and neither of these reasons is restricted to First Century cultural customs. The Bible tells us that one reason for the headcovering is to demonstrate the divine order of authority and submission that Elohim has decreed (va.3). The other reason is -because of the angels' (va.10). Both of these reasons (which will be discussed later) have to do with eternal principles, and are not limited to some First Century cultural custom that Messianics have imagined.
Elohim's order of authority and the actions of angels are not things that only First Century believers needed to be concerned with. Both of these are as valid today as ever.
When the Bible clearly states the reasons for a practice, it is presumptuous to ignore those reasons, and then excuse oneself from obedience by theorizing and imagining reasons that are not even suggested in the text.

RESPONSE #4: OUTWARD SYMBOLS AND INWARD REALITIES

We know from Matthew chapter 23 that many Pharisees of the New Testament period emphasized only outward holiness and neglected inward holiness. Many Messianics, in their attempt to avoid making the same mistake, make the opposite mistake - they emphasize only inward holiness and neglect outward holiness. The headcovering, they say, is just one of those outward symbols that only Pharisaical hypocrites are concerned about.

A passage often quoted to dismiss headcovering and other matters of outward appearance is 1 Samuel16:7b: " for Yahweh seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but Yahweh looketh on the heart....
Those who so quote from this verse conveniently omit and ignore the first part of the verse, which shows us what it actually means. The context of the passage makes it clear that Yahweh is not saying "dress any way you please." These words about man's looking on the outward appearance were spoken to Samuel because he was impressed by the height and good looks of Jesse's oldest son, Eliab. Samuel thought that Eliab was surely the one he was to anoint as king. "But Yahweh said unto Samuel, Look not on his
countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him" (1Sam. 16:7a). Then it was that Yahweh spoke about man's looking on the outward appearance.

Yahweh is not saying in 1 Samuel 16:7b that He does not care what we wear. He is simply saying that when He decides to anoint someone for a task, He does not base His choice on the height, weight, or physical beauty of the person. He looks at the heart, not the body.

Wearing a headcovering is only one of many Biblical practices that could be called outward, symbolic acts.
Insincere believers, hypocrites, and even unbelievers sometimes get baptized or take Messiah's Supper, yet very few Messianics suggest that these Biblical practices be abandoned by sincere believers. Likewise, the wearing of the headcovering should not be abandoned simply because it is an outward symbolic act that may be done by hypocrites.

RESPONSE #5: "NOBODY ELSE DOES IT"

Some women agree that wearing a headcovering is a valid Biblical practice, but they refuse to do it because no other women in their congregation do it. They fear they will draw attention to themselves and project a "holier-than-thou" image if they wear a headcovering in a bareheaded congregation.

Our motive for obeying any of Yahwehs commands should be to please our Heavenly Father, of course. Our motive should never be "to be seen of men." But if we begin to obey a commandment that is neglected by our peers, our action will often draw attention upon us, whether we want it or not. It is unavoidable. Regardless of the purity of our motives, there will always be carnal people who misjudge us and accuse us of trying to project a "holier-than-thou" image.

Those women who do not wear a headcovering only because "nobody else does it" may think they are being humble and spiritual by refusing to draw attention to themselves. The sad truth is that preserving their reputation among their peers is more important to them than obeying the will of Elohim. They fear that carnal people will misunderstand them and consider then eccentric.
The great Nineteenth Century evangelist Charles Finney tells us what to expect if we want to be truly spiritual:
"You will be called eccentric; probably you will deserve it. Probably you will really be eccentric. I never knew a person who was filled with the Spirit that was not called eccentric. And the reason is that such people are unlike other folk. There is therefore the best reasons why such persons should appear eccentric. They act under different influences, take different views, are moved by different motives, led by a different spirit.

PART Il: THE VALUE OF THE HEADCOVERING

The key to seeing and appreciating the value of the headcovering is simply understanding the two reasons the Bible gives for wearing it. As mentioned earlier, the two reasons are 1) to demonstrate Elohim's order of authority (va.3) and 2) "because of the angels" (vs.10).
When these two concepts are properly understood, wearing the headcovering will not be viewed as some legalistic bondage, but as a doorway into glorious liberty. It will be viewed not as something to oppress women, but as something that gives women the freedom and privilege to rightfu!ly move into their Yahweh-given place of authority in the Body. Furthermore, the use of the headcovering will be seen as something that affects angelic and demonic activity when the woman believes in the spiritual realities the headcovering represents.
For more in formation on this subject please go to:
www. ?