Many Christians believe men should not cover their heads while praying. This doctrine is usually based on First Corinthians Eleven and Verse Four. In the New King James Version this passage reads:

1st Corinthians 11:4 (NKJV)
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.

This translation conflicts with the Torah, which tells the High Priest to cover his head not just once, but twice: first with a turban, and then again with a crown.

The High Priest’s sons were also to cover their heads with turbans, but they also wore ‘exquisite hats’ (called “migba’ot”, מִּגְבָּעֹת) underneath their turbans.

Strong’s Hebrew Concordance tells us the migba’ah (migba’ot for plural) was a hemispherical cap.

OT4021 migba`ah (mig-baw-aw’); from the same as OT1389; a cap (as hemispherical).

When we look up the reference at OT1389, we see that this hemispherical cap looked like a ‘little hill.’

OT:1389 gib`ah (ghib-aw’); feminine from the same as OT:1387; a hillock: -hill, little hill.

This description of a ‘little hill’ sounds very much like the traditional large Jewish black skullcap; except that it was to be made of fine linen (rather than cotton). However, the real issue here is that the Torah tells the priests to cover their heads twice whenever serving in the Temple (as a uniform), yet most translations of First Corinthians 11:4 tell us that men should not cover their heads while praying or prophesying. This makes it seem as if the Apostle Shaul is contradicting the Torah, which we know from our earlier studies cannot be.

In this study we have tried to bear in mind how Yeshua told us not to think that He came to destroy even the least of the commandments in Torah.

Mattityahu (Matthew) 5:17-19
17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Torah or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.
18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the Torah till all is fulfilled.
19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Whenever we wonder if Shaul is speaking against the Torah we need to remember how Kepha (Peter) told us Shaul’s letters are difficult to understand, and that even in the first century there were those who misinterpreted Shaul’s writings as being against the Torah.

Kepha Bet (2 Peter) 3:15-17
15 and consider that the longsuffering of our Adon is salvation — as also our beloved brother Shaul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
17 You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked….

Notice how Kepha tells us that Shaul’s writings are scripture, in that the untaught and unstable twist them as they do the ‘rest’ of Scripture. Yahweh even said that He chose Shaul as a vessel to bear His name.

Ma’asei (Acts) 9:11-16
15 But Yahweh said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel (i.e., the Ephraimites).
16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

So if we remember that Yahweh told the priests to cover their heads whenever they served Him in the Temple (as part of their uniform), and that as Yahweh chosen vessel Shaul would not have contradicted Yahweh, then let us study the meanings of the word ‘covered’, which really refers to wrapping one’s head in a scarf.

The word ‘covered’ in verse four is Strong’s NT:2596, kata (κατὰ), which indicates having something ‘down over the head.’

NT:2596 kata (kat-ah’); a primary particle; (prepositionally) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive case, dative case or accusative case] with which it is joined):

This is kind of confusing. What does it mean to have something ‘down’ on one’s head? If we read further we will see that this word is related to Strong’s NT:2619, katakalupto (κατακαλύπτεται), which refers to having one’s head wholly wrapped, as with a headscarf, or a veil (verse 6, below).

Strong’s Concordance tells us that katakalupto does not mean ‘to cover partially’, as with a hat. Rather, it means ‘to cover wholly’, or veil (as with a headscarf).

NT 2619: katakalupto: to cover wholly, (i.e., to veil).

These kinds of things strike at our appearance, and at our personal comfort, so people do not always like to hear about them. However, Scripture is Scripture, so if we remember that katakalupto means ‘to cover wholly’ (as with a woman’s headscarf, or with a veil), let us plug the meaning of these words into the text, to see what the Apostle Shaul really meant.

Qorintim Aleph (1st Corinthians) 11:4
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head wholly covered (i.e. having his head veiled, or wrapped in a woman’s headscarf), dishonors his head.

And verse six:

Qorintim Aleph (1st Corinthians) 11:6
For if a woman is not wholly covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be wholly covered.

Remembering that Shaul would not have contradicted Yahweh’s command that the Levites cover their heads with a turban or an ‘exquisite hat’ as part of their on-duty garb, what First Corinthians seems to say is that it is wrong for a man to wrap up his head in a (woman’s) headscarf, or even to veil his head when he prays or prophesies, for this dishonors his head. However, he also says it is wrong for a woman not to cover her head wholly with a scarf; for that is like unto being shorn.

The language here is not generally pleasing to the flesh, but the study of headcoverings really starts to get interesting when we remember how Kepha tells us that we are members of a royal Melchizedekian priesthood. (Melek = king [i.e., royal], tzedek = righteous).

Kepha Aleph (1 Peter) 2:9-10
9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a set-apart nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
10 who once were not a people but are now the people of Elohim, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.

But if we are members of the Melchizedekian Order, then should we cover our heads as the Levitical Order was commanded to do? Some say yes, and others say no. The Torah does not specify, but what we do know is that the rules for the Melchizedekian and the Levitical orders are different. The Levitical Order was to operate inside of a Tabernacle or Temple, while the Order of Melchizedek was designed to operate outside of one. Further, the Levitical priesthood was always to leave its garments behind whenever they left the physical set-apart place. That is, the High Priest and his sons never wore their set-apart headpieces outside of the Temple.

Just for the purposes of discussion, if Melchizedekian priests should wear head coverings, then where and when should they to be worn? Should they be worn only inside of the next Temple, since the Levites never wore them outside of the Temple? Should they be worn in synagogues (and other places set apart for worship) since those are a ‘kind’ of a set-apart place? The Torah simply does not address these issues. This is because the dispersion is a punishment: we cannot keep the whole Torah in the dispersion. Until He calls us back to His land and we get to build the next Temple we cannot even know how to keep the Torah properly. Yet while it is important to study, we should be very careful not to make up a bunch of rules of our own.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 12:32
32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.

Yahweh is clear that we are not to add or to take away from His Instructions; and if we read Deuteronomy 4:2 (below) carefully, we might also see that there is a promise involved. If we want to keep the commands of Yahweh our Elohim, then we must not add or take away from His commands.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 4:2
2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your Elohim which I command you.”

One of Yahweh’s commands is not to add to His word. If we do therefore add to His word, are we any longer keeping His commands? Or are we not rather keeping our own?

Could it be that Yahweh intentionally left some things unclear in the Torah, especially about what to do in the dispersion, just to see how we treat each other when we run into gray areas?

The situation is not clear because the examples we have are mixed. The Torah never tells the average man or woman to cover (or not cover) his head; yet Middle Eastern men have long covered their heads for protection from the sun, usually with a turban or other sun shade: yet at the incident of the Burning Bush, Yahweh did not tell Moshe to take the covering off of his head, but the sandals off of his feet.

Shemote (Exodus) 3:5
5 Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is set-apart ground.”

Middle Eastern custom and tradition is that servants cover their heads, and go barefoot. Is this what Yahweh was commanding Moshe, was to become a barefoot servant before Him?

King David also covered his head and went barefoot when he fled from his son Absalom. Was this to show Yahweh that David considered himself His servant, and that he was submitted to Him?

Shemuel Bet (2 Samuel) 15:30
30 So David went up by the Ascent of the Mount of Olives, and wept as he went up; and he had his head covered and went barefoot. And all the people who were with him covered their heads and went up, weeping as they went up.

Yet the fact David covered his head tells us that he did not normally cover his head (at least not in that way). Further, we see that the Prophet Elisha did not always keep his head covered, or else the youths would not have made fun of him for being bald.

Melachim Bet (2 Kings) 2:23
23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!”

It would be convenient if Scripture told us whether to cover our heads or not, outside of a Temple. However, it does not; and unless we are specifically chosen as vessels to bear His name, we should not add to it.

Notice a fine point: Shaul’s writings are not Torah, and perhaps they do not have the same weight as Yahweh’s words; and yet Shaul’s words are Scripture, which is given to us for our instruction (2 Peter 3:15-17, above).

So what was Shaul really saying? When we consider the overall historical context of First Corinthians we have to remember that Corinth was a port town, with the usual low moral standards. Yet much worse than that, Corinth was a center for Greek temple-cult prostitution. The general moral standards in Corinth were so low that Shaul even had to instruct the people to forbid a man to have sex with his father’s wife.

Qorintim Aleph (1st Corinthians) 5:1-2
1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles — that a man has his father’s wife!
2 But you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you.

Shaul tells the Corinthians that while adultery may be accepted in Corinth, adulterers are not allowed inside of the assemblies, as synagogues are to remain set-apart from the defilements of the regular world.

The overall point of Shaul’s epistle to the Corinthians, then, is that of explaining how Hebrew men and women are supposed to behave in the synagogue. Since he had to address some unusual situations he tells the people, “Here are some things that Hebrew men and women are supposed to do; and here are some things that followers of Yeshua should never do (no matter how common they might be in Corinth).”

In his usual loving, gentle way, Shaul tells the believers in Corinth not just to abstain from sex with their father’s wives, but also not to cover (kata) their heads with women’s headscarves. It dishonors a man’s head, and the Torah forbids cross-dressing.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 22:5
5 “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for all who do so are an abomination to Yahweh your Elohim.”

While it may not seem ‘fair’, the Torah does seem to support Shaul’s assertion that the rules are different for men and women. Levitical priests are to cover their heads on duty in the Temple, but are to leave those garments in the Temple. Further, David and Eliyahu did not always cover their heads; so it would seem as if there is no clear commandment for men to cover (or not cover) their heads. However, other passages in Torah do seem to indicate that women are to cover their heads, at least when they are inside the Temple.

In the Torah of the Jealous Husband in Numbers Five, part of the process of exonerating the wife is for the priest to uncover her head (perhaps symbolic of temporarily removing her husband’s authority). This implies that her head has to be covered in the Temple.

Bemidbar (Numbers) 5:18-19
18 Then the priest shall stand the woman before Yahweh, uncover the woman’s head, and put the offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse.

The Torah does not say whether her head is normally to be covered, or whether she covers it just for that event, but it does seems Shaul understood a woman’s headscarf to be a symbol of her husband’s authority, that she should wear whenever praying or prophesying.

Again it may seem ‘unbalanced’ or ‘unfair’ that the rules are different for women than for men, and we still have no direct commandment in the p’shat of the Torah, but there are many things about life that do not seem fair, and it is important to obey the Scriptures. So if we accept the Apostle Shaul’s words as Scripture, then it would seem that it would be best for a woman to keep her head covered (at least when she is in public), so she will be prepared whenever she wants to pray.

But what does verse ten mean, “the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels (messengers)?” The Greek word for ‘angel’ is Strong’s NT:32, ‘aggelos’ (pronounced ang’-el-os), and it has multiple meanings.

NT:32 aggelos (ang’-el-os); from aggello (meaning, to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an “angel”; (or) by implication, a pastor: KJV – angel, messenger.

The word ‘aggelos’ means ‘a messenger’, especially an ‘angel’, but also a pastor. All of these translations make sense. First, an ‘angel’ makes sense because the Nephilim are fallen angels who wrongly took the daughters of men unto themselves as wives.

We will explain more about the Nephilim elsewhere, but one reason the word ‘pastor’ also works here is that in the Middle East, married women traditionally hide their beauty from everyone but their husband. This is just all considered to be part of dressing modestly, so as not to attract or arouse any unwanted male attention. This kind of thing is generally disregarded in the west, but in Hebraic society, modest dress (including covering of the hair) is considered to be a very big deal.

Men are far more visually-oriented than women, and the multi-billion-dollar hair care industry witnesses to the fact that women are aware of the attractiveness of their hair. A woman’s hair can be even more appealing than a finely turned ankle, and it is disingenuous for any woman to spend time, money and energy making her hair attractive, and then claim that it does not have a subliminal effect on men. The whole reason for her spending so much time, money and energy on her hair is specifically to make it appealing, and so the very fact that she spends this time and energy on her hair shows that she is aware of the effect it can have.

The reason young girls and single women in Hebrew society do not cover their hair is precisely because they are advertising their eligibility; yet married women typically cover their hair, so as to conceal their beauty from all but their husband. When they go out they ‘put their hair up’, and when they come home they ‘let their hair down.’ This ‘putting the hair up’ serves the same sort of visual defensive purpose as a wedding ring, except it is all the more effective because it also conceals her beauty from male eyes. If we read First Corinthians 11 with this understanding, we can see that a married woman should wear a symbol of authority on her head not only for her husband, but also for the pastor. Though he may be dedicated to overcoming the flesh, a pastor is still subject to temptations like anyone else. When a woman conceals her beauty it serves as a visual reminder of her devotion to her husband, and to Yahweh. And if even she is not married it is still right for her to cover her hair in the synagogue (just as it is proper for men to control their eyes), for the synagogue is a place set apart for prayer.

In verse thirteen Shaul asks rhetorically if it is proper for a woman to pray to Elohim with her hair exposed:

13 Judge among your selves: is it proper for a woman to pray to Elohim with her head uncovered (with her hair showing)?

Many Christians believe it is completely acceptable for women to go to set-apart places with cleavage, thighs and hair showing, without considering the stumbling block that this kind of thing places in front of the men. While this may be considered acceptable in Christian circles or in Corinth, it has never been acceptable in the synagogue.

It is also not acceptable for men to decorate their hair, or to wear them in tresses. This word decorate is badly mistranslated in the New King James Version, where it is rendered as ‘long’. We will take a closer look at the definitions of the words in a moment.

The word ‘long’ in verses 14 and 15 is the Greek word ‘koma’ (κομᾷ). When we look it up it does not mean ‘long hair’, but rather, ‘decorated hair’ (i.e., tresses).

NT:2863 koma/komao (kom-ah’-o); from NT:2864; to wear tresses of hair: KJV – have long hair.

The King James translators’ rendering of koma as ‘long hair’ is clearly in error. When we look up the reference at NT:2864 we see that it again speaks of tresses, and of ornamentally dressing (or plaiting) the hair. And if we continue looking up the references we will see that it does not simply refer to long hair.

NT:2864 kome (kom’-ay); apparently from the same as NT:2865; the hair of the head (locks, as ornamental, and thus differing from NT:2359; which properly denotes merely the scalp):

When we look up the reference at NT:2359 (from which kome differs) we see that it indicates the hair of the head per se (rather than decorating the hair).

NT:2359 thrix (threeks); genitive case trichos, etc.; of uncertain derivation; hair: KJV – hair. Compare NT:2864.

In other words, koma, komao and kome all differ from thrix, which is merely ‘hair.’ Instead, koma, komao and kome all indicate some form of dressing, plaiting or trellising the hair (as with locks). Surely this is what Shaul told the Corinthians to avoid, for as we explain in the Nazarene Israel study, Shaul took at least two different Nazirite Vows, which call for the hair of the head to grow long. It makes no sense for Shaul to say it is improper for men to have long hair when he would have had long hair himself at that time. Rather, what makes more sense is to understand that he was telling the Corinthians that women should dress like women, and men should dress like men.

Finally, if we read this passage carefully, verse 16 tells us that the assemblies have no custom that sisters can pray or prophesy with their hair uncovered, simply because it is long, or trellised. To the contrary, the prettier it is the more it needs to be covered; and if a sister does not wish to cover her hair wholly then she should be shaven or shorn, as for her to display her beauty openly in the synagogue only serves to distract her brothers from focusing on the Father.

So in sum, the Torah commands the Levitical priests to cover their heads whenever they are on duty in the Temple, as part of their uniform. They leave these set-apart garments behind when they go off duty, and do not take them with them.

We have seen that the Torah gives no direct command to the average Israelite man or woman to cover their heads; and we see how King David and Elisha may not have had their heads covered from day to day. However, the Torah of the Jealous Husband and First Corinthians Eleven seem to imply that a woman should cover her head if she is married; and that a woman’s head should be covered in places of public worship, regardless of her marital status. At least, this is the extent of my understanding at this point in time, but I should also point out that in my role as a teacher I am not in a position to judge other human beings as to their level of acceptance of this study, or any other. My job is merely to teach, and allow Yahweh’s Spirit to be the one to convict (or not), as Yahweh sees fit.

Whenever a study is posted about headcoverings there is always an outcry that the small Jewish kippa (also called a yarmulke) derives from pagan tradition. This is true. The small Jewish kippa represents a halo, or a ‘sun disk.’ This is a sun worship symbol, and it needs to be avoided. However, this says nothing about the commandment for on-duty Levitical priests to cover their heads whenever they are serving in a Temple before Yahweh.

Do I cover my head? I believe I can. But should I do so in a synagogue environment? I just simply do not know. I believe Scripture is clear that when the Temple is rebuilt and the Levitical and Melchizedekian orders are merged (as the Prophet Isaiah foretold in Isaiah 66:21) then it will be the thing to do.

Would I cover my head as an on-duty priest in a renewed Temple? Absolutely: I would cover my head twice, because that is what Yahweh says to do. Would I think women should cover their heads in a Temple environment (or in any set-apart house of prayer)? Yes, I believe that would be the right thing for them to do, but in the dispersion I am loathe to do anything more than encourage it as the teaching of Scripture. As long as we remain out in the dispersion I do not believe we can make any hard and fast rules for our people to follow; but that we should just be aware of the fact that until He calls us back to His land, we cannot please Him by keeping all of His Torah.