Why was the veil lost?

 

Why was the veil lost?

The veil lost meaning with many, and fell out of fashion. I believe those that continued to try and wear the veil felt discouraged, and under attack by other persons who felt challenged by their action, and they therefore dropped the practice. This God-ordained headship order is looked upon with distain and discontent by many today. Many men have neglected or abused their authority; while many women say they feel degraded and deprived.

"Liberated" woman have exchanged their position of honor, as given by God, for a position of “independent equality,” – wrongly thinking that equality is something more than God’s perfect plan. In exchange for a few new freedoms, they sacrifice their place of protection under man's authority. This attitude of independence is cautioned against in verses 11 and 12 of 1 Corinthians 11. God desires men and women to be dependent on each other, man needs woman, and woman needs man.

By God's grace, a leading, providing husband and a submissive, supportive wife become building blocks for a stable, happy family. Stable families, in turn, build solid, caring churches and a healthy society.

Conversely, as men neglect their leadership, and women spurn that authority, the family begins to deteriorate and our society experiences repercussive social ills. Men and women become bound by the freedoms they sought, and children suffer immeasurably.

Should Christian women wear head coverings today?

We need to examine the Bible to answer such a question. Please read I Corinthians 11:1-16. First we must ask ourselves, “What did I Corinthians 11:1-16 command its original readers to do?” It instructed women to place a piece of cloth or fabric (a.k.a. head covering or veil) upon their heads when praying or prophesying. The size, shape, and color of the head covering is not specified. It is designed to cover the head (vv. 5, 6, 10) and has a function similar to that of hair (vv. 14-15) (although hair, after the fall of man, no longer fulfilled the original purpose as a headcoverning).

This passage also instructed men to pray with their heads uncovered. Men should not pray or prophesy with hats, prayer shawls, skull caps, or any other object that covers their head. The code of good manners in North America still reflects this tradition, which is why men remove their hats for prayer at sporting events, graduation ceremonies, etc.

When should women cover their heads and men not cover their heads?

Paul instructs women to wear a head covering whenever they pray or prophesy (vs. 5). Similarly, men are instructed to keep their heads uncovered when praying or prophesying (vs. 4). At a minimum, this means women should have their heads covered (and men uncovered) when the congregation is gathered for prayer, edification, and worship.

Some Christians point to the second half of 1 Corinthians 11 (which deals with the Lord’s Supper) and argue that the context for both instructions seems to be formal public gatherings of the Body of Christ. Accordingly, these Christians conclude that the instructions in 1 Corinthians 1:1-16 are applicable only in public meetings of the church. This seems a reasonable position, however, women pray throughout the day and in many locations. Women often speak God’s Word to children and friends outside of church settings. 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 does not specify a situation that only occurs in public church meetings. This is a reasonable and defensible position. Both Old Testament Hebrew women and Christian women, throughout church history, wore head coverings all the time, and not at worship services only. For these reasons, we may conclude that women should indeed wear head coverings always, and not only in church meetings.

Doesn’t a woman’s long hair qualify as a head covering?

No. This argument is ridiculous: firstly because the Bible is referring to a piece of cloth or fabric when it commands women to wear head coverings (and commands men not to do so). According to Dr. Robert Spinney, it wasn’t until the beginning of the late nineteenth century, that some argued (based on verse 15b) that Paul is instructing women to have long hair and that the so-called head covering is nothing more than long hair. If this “long hair equals head covering” interpretation is true, then we should be able to substitute the phrase long hair for the word covering in this passage and retain the passage’s meaning. For example, if covering means “long hair,” then vs. 6 would mean that the women who do not wear long hair (but only shorn) should have their hair shorn, which doesn’t even make sense, because it is already so. Likewise, vs. 4 would mean that men should go bald all the time! – I don’t think so, do you?

This is why the Greek word used in verse 15 for the covering of a woman’s hair (peribolaion) is different from the Greek word used in verses 6 and 7 for the covering of cloth (katakalupto, which is derived from kalumma, a word that means “a covering, a hood, or veil”). The two Greek words are not interchangeable.

When Paul says in verse 15b that a woman’s long hair is given her as a covering, he is not defining the nature of the covering. By the time he reaches verse 15, the inspired apostle has already presented his argument at length. His readers know what he is talking about, viz. a piece of cloth called a head covering or veil. He is now bringing to bear additional considerations for his listeners to weigh. One such consideration is how our innate sensibilities tell us that women’s heads ought to appear different than men’s heads. Our own natural sensibilities, says Paul, tell us that women’s heads should be more covered than men’s. This is what Paul means by his reference to hair in verse 15b.

It is only in the past century that some commentators have attempted to make this “hair equals head covering” argument. Whether we look at Hebrew women in the Old Testament or Christian women through the ages (and in a variety of different cultures), God’s people have always understood that the head covering is a piece of cloth or clothing worn upon the head and not merely a woman’s long hair.

Is the veil a just commandment for the Corinthians due to their culture, and therefore not applicable today?

Probably the more common explanation of this passage is that it is merely a cultural commandment. (It is amazing how far people will go out of their way to avoid the head covering.) According to this view, the passage is understood as a culture-specific response to a prostitute problem in 60 A.D. Corinth; female prostitutes were easily identified by their uncovered heads, unlike virtuous Corinthians women (or so the explanation goes), prostitutes did not cover their heads. Therefore Paul is telling the Christian women to head cover because it is wrong to go around looking like a prostitute.

According to this view, if this passage was just for a Corinthian problem in 60 A.D., then there is no need for Americans, or any modern culture to wear it today.

I certainly agree that it is not good for Christian women to look like prostitutes, nor do I disagree that Corinth had a prostitution problem. However, there is no indication in I Corinthians 11:1-16 that this instruction is given because of a bare-headed prostitute problem. There is no suggestion in this passage that cultural factors in Corinth prompted this instruction. Nor is there any indication that this commandment is only for Corinthians Christians in their specific cultural setting.

If anything, this is a commandment for all time and for all peoples. Paul doesn’t just tell the women to wear the head covering; he tells them why women should cover their heads. Each of the reasons are timeless spiritual realities, not Corinthian cultural practices. By providing eternal truths for head coverings, the Bible makes it clear that wearing the head covering is applicable to all Christians at all times.

What is I am partially but not wholly persuaded?

What if I agree, but am not morally convicted in my conscience?

These words from R. C. Sproul, Sr. are helpful: “What if, after careful consideration of a Biblical mandate, we remain uncertain as to its character as principle or custom? If we must decide to treat it one way or the other but have no conclusive means to make the decision, what can we do? Here the biblical principle of humility can be helpful. The issue is simple. Would it be better to treat a possible custom as a principle and be guilty of being over scrupulous in our design to obey God? Or would it be better to treat a possible principle as a custom and be guilty of being unscrupulous in demoting a transcendent requirement of God to the level of a mere human convention? I hope the answer is obvious.” (Knowing Scripture, pp. 11-12)