Head Covering For Christian Women – A Critical Discourse

HEAD COVERING FOR CHRISTIAN WOMEN

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE WITH BIBLICAL ANALYSIS

“Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility.” 1 Peter 5:5 (KJV)

Often, we find a debate on whether a Christian woman should wear a head covering or not, especially within the Church, and very specially in the presence of other male brethren or elders. We find that there are many views, some supported from scriptures and some based on traditions. Few others base their arguments on traditions followed during the time period of Corinth church and thus support their derivations.

The issue at hand is mainly derived from Apostle Paul’s statements in 1 Cor. 11:2-16. Let us then delve into the details of Apostle Paul’s arguments & explanations and thus arrive at what was in the Apostle’s mind and what made him write these things to the Corinth church. If we can understand the background, then we will be able to clearly comprehend, what the Apostle was trying to communicate and thus establish the divine truth about woman’s head covering in Church.

BACKGROUND

Who Wrote? The First Epistle to Corinthians was written by Brother Sosthenes as Apostle Paul’s secretary or amanuensis (1 Cor. 1:1) and authenticated & signed by the Apostle with his closing greetings (1 Cor. 16:21). This “Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue” (Acts 18:17), may have been converted at Corinth, when Apostle Paul established the church there during his visit for about a year and a half (Acts 18:1,8,11).

To Whom: The letter was addressed to “the church of God being in Corinth, to the consecrated in Christ Jesus, to the called holy ones, with all calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, both theirs and ours” (1 Cor. 1:2).

When Written: The letter could have been written around 53-57AD, during the Apostle’s stay at Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8, Acts 20:17,31), where he stayed for about 3 years, during his third journey (earlier Apostle Paul had founded the Corinth church during his second journey about 49-51AD).

Why Written: We assume that the motive behind the Apostle writing this epistle is that he comes to know about some issues happening at Corinth. Further, he had also received a letter from them requesting certain clarifications. (1 Cor. 1:11; 7:1).

We encourage the readers to practice verse-by-verse study of the entire epistle, which would profit in understanding the topics dealt, flow of arguments / explanations and their overall & relative contexts. Understanding this background information, enables us to put ourselves into the Apostle’s shoes and seek to understand his words along with the context, thereby “have the mind of Christ” [1 Cor. 2:16] in such matters.

PASTOR RUSSELL’S VIEWS

The scriptures authenticate drawing types or symbolism from the Old Testament. However, we should note that the scriptures do not hold symbolism within the Gospel Age Church, but presents many a symbol outside, to explain the Gospel Age church and its various features. The explanation invariably holds equality within the members, be it a “brother” or a “sister”. Nowhere in the scriptures, is a brother either symbolised or even equated with our Lord. On the contrary, the scriptures always hold equality among all the members and maintains the headship only to our Lord. “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren” Matt. 23:8.

Further Pastor Russell in his text on the same topic of “Let Her Be Covered”, surmises that the head covering is a separate cloth covering and not her hair as covering. We will shortly analyse these views presented by him.

MAN AND WOMAN IN CHURCH

The Head Covering subject is deeply interconnected with the subject “Man and Woman in God’s Order” (in fact this is the main subject of which head covering for women is a subset) and hence we should study this subject as well, to understand the full crux of the message presented by Apostle Paul. In general, Bible teaches equality of Man and Woman within the Church. We summarise few key points for our brief understanding:

– All (both brothers and sisters) are called for the same glory, same hope, same immortality. If the reward be the same, then the race is also equal, the conditions are the same and so is the expectation from our Lord.

– All are required to have the same faith and are justified through the same faith as stated in Rom. 3:22, “Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference”. No Jew or Gentile, no Man or Woman; there is no difference.

– All are thus baptised with the same Spirit – the powerful and Holy spirit of God.

– In baptism, our will (representing one’s individuality) is immersed in death with Christ. God accepting our sacrifice, begets us to a new nature, wherein only the new will is accounted. “Henceforth, from the divine standpoint, we are not to count ourselves as human beings, of human nature, of the earth, earthy, and as having earthly aims, objects and hopes, but as New Creatures in Christ Jesus.” [3]

– The symbols or the types belong to the Jewish age picturizing the realities of the Gospel age or Millennial age. The Gospel age Church does not bear symbolism, since it is the reality.

The scriptures however show a differentiation between Husband and Wife – that is within a marriage relationship. This differentiation is for some specific reasons, which are briefly stated herein:

1) It provides headship within the marriage relationship / family. This headship was provided only after the fall of man (especially to help / assist themselves in their degraded condition). It is pertinent to note that the command that the Husband will “rule over” the Wife was given after Adam’s fall at Eden. Earlier, Eve was an equal counterpart or “meet for him”.

2) It provides a picture for the church in understanding its relationship with its Head – Jesus Christ.

In summary, the scriptures state, that in Christ there is no differentiation between man and woman. In “New creation” there is no Jew, nor Greek, no slave, nor freeman and no man, nor woman. Gal. 3:27-28. If we say that there is a differentiation between man and woman within the Church or in Christ, then we have to state others as well, such as there is Jew, there is Greek, there is slave… But fortunately, the scriptures do not speak that way.

WOMAN’S HEAD COVERING

The important question is not whether to wear a head covering or not, but what is the head covering mentioned in the scriptures. There are two major views or arguments for this:

I) Head covering is a separate cloth or material that should be used to cover the head.

II) Head covering is in fact the hair of the woman.

ARGUMENT I – HEAD COVERING IS SEPARATE AND NOT HER HAIR

Let us see Argument I and check whether it holds good with the scriptures. If we assume that the head covering is a separate cloth, then it is difficult to harmonise the text in verses 1 Cor. 11:13-15. In verse 13, the Apostle raises a question, “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?”. And he starts to answer the question in the following verses 14 & 15. The end point of his answer states that “For her hair is given to her for a covering.”

Some argue that the Apostle was speaking about a local tradition that women should wear a head covering and which they had failed to follow. Let us put some reasoning into this thought.

(a) First, if we speculate that Apostle Paul had indeed wanted them to follow the traditions of the Greek society, then we should also consider that in other places where the churches were established such as Syria, Ephesus, Rome, these would have had specific customs as well. Did the Apostle encourage these churches to follow their own traditions and customs? Certainly not. Obviously, the Apostle was more specific on emphasizing the Christian liberty, rather than enforcing the local customs or traditions and its bondage.

(b) Secondly, Corinth & the nearby port at Cenchreae (Acts 18:18) were metro towns and hence these towns had a mixture of people with different traditions and culture. We can compare it to our modern-day international metros, such as Mumbai, Dubai or New York, in which one can observe that on the same street a significant variety of people dressed according to their ethnic customs or styles may be present. Hence, it would neither be reasonable nor appropriate to expect uniformity of a traditional culture to be imposed commonly for all the church members at Corinth, even so on the entire Church of God.

(c) Thirdly, if we still continue to say that the Apostle had in fact advised the Corinthians to follow their area specific traditions, then what can be done if the tradition of a place or a town itself states, “women should not wear a head covering”?

(d) Fourthly, if we would still go on ahead and wish to follow the Apostle’s words, exactly word-for-word, then we should also investigate what type of covering should be used? What covering was prescribed by the Apostle? Many seem to wear a hat or a small scarf as a head covering. But the Greek word used by the Apostle is “katakalupto” (Strong’s G2619), which means to cover down or to cover wholly. It cannot merely refer to ornamental or token headpieces, or to the headbands ordinarily used by Greek women. Even today we find few Christian women who do this kind of namesake following.

(e) Finally, if the woman has to wear the head covering in the church, then does that mean that our Lord Jesus is present only in Church gatherings? Is He not present with us at all times, especially after His personal return (as we believe) in 1874? In that case, can she remove her head covering, even after she recognises His presence with her? Further, can she remove it at home, if her husband or sons are consecrated and are now her “brothers” in Christ? She cannot remove it at all, isn’t it?

DOES THE OLD TESTAMENT SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE CLOTH HEAD COVERING?

Since the New Testament does not seem to throw enough light on what a head covering should be, let us turn back to the Old Testament and see if we could take some illustrations?

(a) First let us start with Moses. We know that Moses was covering his face with a veil. To hold the veil, Moses should have worn a head covering as well. Should then all women follow a similar pattern, and cover their faces as well? In western traditions and in few other countries, this is practiced. Women who are married wear a hat with a veil to cover their faces as well. Hence, if sisters would like to cover their head as per the scriptures, then it would seem that they should fully cover their head (along with their faces), as Moses did. But we feel that this is not reasonable. When we come to the School of Christ, isn’t it necessary to study with eye contact, without a veil of disturbance? [2 Cor. 3:12-13] We will shortly find out that this thought of wearing a veil over the face is not scriptural as well.

(b) Another instance of head covering is from Exodus, wherein the High Priest and Under-priest cover their heads (Exo. 28:4,37,40). The high priest wore a “mitre” (miznefet), and the under-priests a “bonnet” (migba’at). However, we cannot take a type for brothers and sisters from this, as this represents our Lord (High Priest) and the church (under-priests). Moreover, as indicated in the scriptures (Lev. 16:4; Eze. 44:18), both the high priest and under priest were wearing a head covering.

(c) Further, if we analyse the Old Testament scriptures, the covering of head is considered to be a sign of mourning or unworthiness. 2 Sam. 15:30 reads, “And David went up by the ascent of [mount] Olivet, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot: and all the people that [was] with him covered every man his head, and they went up, weeping as they went up.” Jer. 14:3-4, “And their nobles have sent their little ones to the waters: they came to the pits [and] found no water; they returned with their vessels empty; they were ashamed and confounded and covered their heads”. Esth. 6:12 “And Mordecai came again to the king’s gate. But Haman hasted to his house mourning, and having his head covered”.

In all these instances, we observe that the covering of the head seems to be a symbol of unworthiness or mourning or sin. If we assemble in the church of God, with our head covered, are we to think it unworthy to gather? Should we then mourn while we take part in our gathering? Should we then consider ourselves sinners, even after being cleansed by the precious blood of Jesus Christ? Certainly not.

As we can see, the Old Testament does not even provide a single reason to wear the head covering for women.

IS CLOTH HEAD COVERING A SYMBOL OF HUMILITY?

Some hold a view that the head covering symbolises submission and humility. If this is so, then it is more apt that the entire congregation wear the symbol. It would be more apt that Jesus would have worn a head covering right from his baptism unto his death, since he submitted himself entirely to the will of God. But did Jesus, our forerunner and example, in whose footsteps we are called follow, really wear a head covering? Sometimes, we see pictures of Jesus shown with a robe of head covering. Probably wearing a head covering was a matter of convenience, rather than a law or symbolism. The few texts in the scriptures, which indicate his dress, does not record him wearing a head covering, except of course his crown of thorns on his head, which he bore for our sake. Now our Lord and Master, is crowned with Glory, Honour, and Immortality. And we too will receive a crown if we walk in his footsteps.

IS CLOTH HEAD COVERING A PROTECTION FROM PRYING EYES?

Some women say that the cloth head covering acts as a sort of cover from some men’s prying eyes. Few others say that their beautiful hair or their dress or attire should not be a cause for distraction of others, especially men, and hence they have a cloth head covering. At first, this may sound quite reasonable, but a thorough examination will expose its wrong footing. The idea behind this reasoning is “lust of the eyes”. The “lust” is in the eyes of the beholder, just as the saying goes, “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”. Now let us reason. If a person lusts for money, for example of his neighbour’s bungalow or lands, etc. Can we cover the bungalow or lands and keep them out of sight to stop the “lust of the eyes”? At the same time, the women are advised to dress modestly. (1 Pet. 3:3; 1 Tim. 2:9). But what if the men still lust on a woman who wears a modest dress? The scriptures says that trouble lies within the beholder, as stated by Apostle James in Jam. 1:14-15, “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.”

Let us take an example from scriptures for the right course to be followed. In Genesis 39, we note the integrity of Joseph even under severe temptation posed to him by Potiphar’s wife. God has given these examples for us to follow. Men have such lessons before them in the scriptures, not only so, but Apostle Paul also says in 1 Cor. 6:18, “Flee fornication.”. Moreover, we have our Master’s command in Matt. 5:27-28, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Apostle Paul also says that each one has to give account of himself to God (Rom. 14:12). We are especially called to put to death the old desires of the flesh. “Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness” Col. 3:5. Thus we see that the reason for lust is not the case for the woman, but of the man. However, the woman has the responsibility to dress modestly as she would anywhere else.

THE NAZARITE VOW – A SYMBOL?

The Old Testament also records of a specialised consecration to God – called Nazarite Vow. This is recorded in Num. 6:1-2, “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, when either man or woman shall separate [themselves] to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate [themselves] unto the LORD”. In general, Bible Students agree that this Jewish Age – Nazarite Vow or consecration, represents the consecration of the Gospel Age Church unto God. In Num. 6:5, we read “All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth [himself] unto the LORD, he shall be holy [and] shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow”.

On the one hand, if we take a symbolism from Nazarite Vow, representing our consecration to God, just as Br. Russell took symbolism from the under-priest’s head covering, then all the consecrated members (both the brothers and sisters) cannot shave their heads “until the days be fulfilled”. In other words, until their death! How absurd it is to take a symbol and apply it literally to the Church.

On the other hand, we read in Num. 6:7-9 (HCSB), “He is not to defile himself for his father or mother, or his brother or sister, when they die, because the hair consecrated to his God is on his head. He is holy to the LORD during the time of consecration. If someone suddenly dies near him, defiling his consecrated head of hair, he must shave his head on the day of his purification; he is to shave it on the seventh day”. (Note that KJV translation omits “hair”, but HCSB captures it). We understand that the hair is consecrated or separated for God and it is finally offered as sacrifice in Num. 6:18, “And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation [at] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put [it] in the fire which [is] under the sacrifice of the peace offerings”. In this case, the hair is considered holy as it is sacrificed to God. If the hair is indeed holy, should we cover it or veil it before God? Does God prefer an open sacrifice or a veiled sacrifice?

We then conclude that there is no clear mandate from the scriptures as to the specifics of a cloth as the head covering for women. Now pause for a moment and reason – If, as some brethren indicate, wearing of the cloth head covering is very important for sisters, then why would not the scriptures provide clear instructions on such an important topic, if at all it is important? There is no reference about head covering in the New Testament, other than 1 Corinthians 11.

In the Old Testament, there are more than 600 commandments (including the Law), and not a single one that provides instructions for women’s head covering. There are commandments that a man should not wear woman’s dress and vice versa, there are instructions that the fabric linen and wool, be not mixed, there are commandments for the priest (both High Priest & Under-priests) about their hair, “Neither shall they shave their heads, nor suffer their locks to grow long; they shall only poll their heads”, Eze. 44:20 and “Priests may not make bald spots on their heads, shave the edge of their beards, or make gashes on their bodies.” Lev. 21:5. Even for an ordinary Israelite man, there were instructions about hair, “You are not to cut off the hair at the sides of your head or mar the edge of your beard”, Lev. 19:27. Yet, not a single instruction about women’s head covering cloth. Why so? We answer that the scriptures do not intend this, especially for the church. If this “symbolism” of women wearing a cloth as a head covering was really important, then would not have God given more specific and clearer guidelines, simply to wear or not to wear, similar to our Lord’s memorial supper, instead of so many confusions.

God has not purposed a cloth head covering for the women within the Church either literally or as a symbol. In fact, in Num. 5:18 “And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman’s head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which [is] the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse”, we see that the woman should uncover her head and thus present herself before God. This statement clearly shows that a woman is standing in the presence of God, without head covering, her hair being visible. Now this brings us to the next Argument.

ARGUMENT II – HEAD COVERING IS HER LONG HAIR

We will take up a verse-by-verse study to further our understanding on the subject.

Prelims: Though not directly connected to our topic, we should understand the flow of text for our background information. We see that the Apostle Paul has just finished explaining Christian Liberty in 1 Cor. 10:23-24. He had dealt about food which was offered to idols and the law of liberty attached to it.

Now let us probe into 1 Corinthians 11 verse by verse using the KJV translation:

Verse 2 (KJV): “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you”. The Apostle praises the Corinthians for having followed him and keeping the customs he had delivered.

Verse 3 (KJV): “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”. It should be noted that the Greek word for man and husband is the same and likewise, the Greek word for woman and wife are the same. Hence the translators endeavour to put the apt word by trying to understand the context. Here the woman and man are to be aptly translated as Wife and Husband, because within the Husband – Wife relationship, Husband is the head, and wife is under him as per the divine command. (Compare Eph. 5:22-25 where the same Greek words for Man and Woman are translated as Husband and Wife). Since Apostle Paul wishes to differentiate between the natural head covering of Man and that of Woman using human nature, he brings the relationship of Husband-and-Wife into picture. Further, we see the symbolism or comparison expressed is between Jesus Christ as Head, represented by Husband and Church, represented by Wife. Just as the Church is subservient to its Head, Jesus Christ, the Wife is subservient to her head, her husband. However, there is no differentiation within the Church members, that is between brothers and sisters. (For example, refer Easy to Read translation.)

Verse 4 (KJV): “Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head.” [Refer Supplement Section for corrected English translation]. Here the man is to be aptly translated as Husband.

Verse 5 (KJV): “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”. Here “Woman” is to be aptly translated as Wife. The Apostle explains that every woman who prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, which is her husband.

Verse 6-7 (KJV): “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. 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”. The translation provided here, contradicts what the Apostle says in verse 15, which states “if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her”. If the Apostle denotes that long hair is a glory to a woman, why would he state, “let her also be shorn”? This seeming contradiction is resolved when the correct translation is used. We will analyse these verses in detail with NIV translation. Here again we see that Apostle Paul is using human nature and husband-wife relationship to substantiate his point.

Verses 8-9 (KJV): “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”. Here the Apostle states the reason for the headship of husband over the wife (without the church), referring to the first husband-wife relationship, Adam & Eve.

Verse 10 (KJV): “For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels”. Here the Apostle states, because of the Angels, the wife should have authority on her head. This authority is the headship of husband over the wife and the Apostle states that this authority was given by Angels, “he will rule over you” (Gen. 3:16, Gal. 3:19; not given directly by God -compare John 5:37). Also note that the Greek word used (G32) is the same for both plural and singular (Refer Luke 1:26, where the same Greek word is used in singular form). In general, since many commands and communications were given through Angels, it is translated in the plural form (also compare Gal. 3:19). We thus understand that the Angels have delivered the message of authority on her head and therefore because of them (angels), she has to keep and honour the authority. However, it should be noted that this headship or authority (also referred in verses 8 and 9) is for general husband-wife relationship only.

Verse 11-12 (KJV): “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God”. The Apostle Paul, however, clarifies that this headship of husband over wife does not apply within Christ. In Christ, both are equal. Since the New Creation is not in human nature.

We will now start analysing our texts under consideration with NIV translation. But before that, we need to take into account few points.

(i) In the original Greek texts, there is no specific word for a separate head covering – such as veil or cloth or turban, etc. The Greek word “kata / kataKalypto” simply means covering fully or cover down. Combining with the previous word “head”, we see the meaning as “covering down from or on head”.

(ii) What is that which is covering fully and covering down from the head? Of course, it is the natural hair or more aptly long hair for the women, which covers down fully from head.

(iii) If the word “covered” (kataKalypto) means long hair, then what does the opposite word “uncovered” (akataKalypto) mean? Yes, it means short hair.

(iv) Another point to be noted is that the Apostle Paul at this juncture, is speaking of natural long hair and short hair. For women, it is natural to have long hair, “covering” down from the head. However, for men, this covering down is not natural, and thus they are required to have their head “uncovered” or have short hair. For women, it is not natural to have short hair, it is the same as being shaven (which is a disgrace).

Now we will review the text verses 4-7with NIV Alternate Translation (usually given in the margin):

Verse 4 (NIV Alternate): “Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head.” [Refer Supplement Section for correct Tamil Translation]. Here the Apostle Paul states that a Husband dishonours his head (which is Christ), if he prays or prophesies with long hair, since it is unnatural for a man to have long hair.

Verse 5 (NIV Alternate): “But every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering of hair dishonors her head—she is just like one of the “shorn women.” Here the Apostle says that if the wife prays or prophesies with short hair, then she dishonours her head (which is her husband). Since it is unnatural for a woman to have short hair and it is a disgrace, just like having her head shaven.

Verse 6 (NIV Alternate): “If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair; but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again.” Here the Apostle explains a practical situation. He says in case the woman does not have long hair, let it be for now. But she should grow it again, since not having long hair for a woman is unnatural, and is disgraceful.

Verse 7 (NIV Alternate): “A man ought not to have long hair”. The Apostle confirms that it is not natural for a man to have long hair. We thus see that the Apostle is instructing that if the woman cuts her hair short to look like a man, she might as well shave it off, because it is indecorum or disgrace for a woman to have a shaved head; instead, she should have long hair which makes her look like a woman. We may recall that God did command the Israelites similarly with respect to their attire in Deu. 22:5 “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Coming back to the closing verses, we shall find that “head uncovered” means short hair & “head covered” means long hair and more importantly it would be harmonious and meaningful with the context of the Apostle’s discussion.

Verse 13-15 (KJV): “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering”. We can confirm here that the Apostle was indeed speaking about natural long hair of women as covering and thus there is no law or command that her head should be covered with something other than her natural hair.

Now, what if the woman’s hair is not growing due to some medical complications or whatever reason, and her head has been shaved? What can be done then? The Apostle answers us in the next verse, that it is not an issue. 1 Cor. 11:16 “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.” Here we pause to note that KJV translates the Greek word “toioutos” (Strong’s G5108) as “such”. Some modern translators use the word “other” instead. For example, the HCSB translates the same verse as “But if anyone wants to argue about this, we have no other custom, nor do the churches of God” and in the margin provides “no such” as an alternate for “other”. In this case, we find that KJV translation is most apt, considering the context and the Apostle Paul’s explanation.

In summation with 1 Cor. 11:16, the Apostle says, that whether it be covering the head (having long hair) or not covering the head (having short hair), there is no such custom here (at Corinth), neither does any other church gathering (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23-24). It means that we need not fight over the answer. And a Christian or a “New Creation” is free to take such decisions and is at liberty to decide for himself/herself, controlled only by its effect on other brethren so as to not cause a stumbling. This exercise of liberty cannot be judged by others. Judgment should only be made on scriptural and doctrinal matters, not on other outwardly aspects (Rom. 14:4; 1 Cor. 4:3).

Though we see that the Apostle Paul in summation of the subject says, “we have no such custom, neither the churches of God”, we still find many churches, insisting that a woman should or rather MUST wear a head covering.

Do the scriptures, especially the New Testament speak about women’s hair anywhere else? Yes, they do. In fact, the same Apostle Paul speaks in 1 Tim. 2:9-10, “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works”. The Apostle Peter also says in 1 Pet. 3:3-5, “Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of 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. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands”. We need to use our reasoning capacities here. If the women, absolutely were to cover their head with a cloth or material covering, then would not the Apostles (both Peter and Paul) have plainly stated them here. On the other hand, if the hair of women were indeed covered and not visible to others, why would they talk about “broided” or “plaiting”?

“DOTH NOT EVEN NATURE ITSELF TEACH YOU?”

In the text 1 Cor. 11:14-15, the Apostle says, “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering”. We ask, does nature really teach us so? Does science teach us so? Does nature or science as we understand, harmonise with the scriptures or does it oppose it? We find that science does indeed support the scriptures.

Scientists say the following, about the growth stages of the normal hair.

Anagen or growth phase (about 2-7 years): This stage of hair growth is determined by genetics and hormones, and as such the longer the hair stays at this stage or the anagen phase, the longer it will grow eventually.

Catagen or transition phase (about 10 days): In this stage the hair follicle shrinks due to disintegration and the papilla detaches, cutting the hair strand off from its nourishing blood supply.

Telogen or resting phase (about 3 months): This is the stage in which the hair rests and is in its final stage (also known as shedding phase).

As per science or could we say, in nature, the hormone called Testosterone (which is found more in men) causes the fast cycling of the stages and making them move on to the next phase. The hormone called Oestrogen or Estrogen (found more in women) nullifies the effect of testosterone, thus enabling longer Anagen phase and making the hair grow longer naturally. Thus, by nature, or rather as per the design of God, men are to have short hair as compared with women. There may be exceptions which is addressed by the Apostle in his final comment at 1 Cor. 11:16.

WHY WAS THE APOSTLE PAUL TALKING ABOUT HAIR AS A COVERING?

If, as we have studied, the Apostle was indeed talking about hair as a covering, it brings us onto another question. Why did the Apostle have to talk about it to Corinthians? If we could somehow find the answer to this question, then we can be sure that we are rightly dividing the word of God and that our reasoning is correct.

In 1 Cor. 10:23, the Apostle talks about freedom that the Corinthians have in Christ, at the same time warning them that “everything” may not be profitable. Then in 1 Cor. 11:2, we read that the Apostle appreciates them for keeping the customs as he had delivered. But before that the Apostle says about imitating him in 1 Cor. 11:1. This verse is the key to our understanding.

It seems that the Corinthians were trying to imitate the Apostle’s customs, considering them as “traditions” handed to them, and that the Apostle had to clarify it and admonish them by way of his letter and text covered in 1 Cor. 11:1-16. So, what was the tradition or custom that the Corinthians were trying to imitate from the Apostle.

We read in Acts 18:1, that the Apostle visited Corinth, and he established the church there (verses 11,12). We further read in verses 18-19, “And Paul [after this] tarried [there] yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn [his] head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow. And he came to Ephesus and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews”. We see that after establishing the church at Corinth, before leaving for Ephesus, the Apostle Paul shaves his head as he had taken a vow.

We reason that it may be quite possible that the shaving of the head at Cenchrea, by the Apostle Paul after establishing the Church at Corinth, may have given a wrong indication or signal to the newly converted members. They might have taken it as a tradition or custom to shave their heads and have short hair as a regular practice, including the women. This information should have reached the Apostle through a letter or by a message through someone. Thus, the Apostle clarifies this point in the text 1 Cor. 11:1-16, stating that it is disgraceful for their heads to be shaven, and it is graceful to have hair in the normal senses (men with short hair and women with long hair). However, this is not a command and hence in verse 16 he closes the argument saying “we (apostles or church member) or the churches at any other location do not have any such custom.”

Cutting off of one’s hair was done as a sign of humiliation as can be seen even in the Old Testament scriptures. When the ancients wished to shame an individual, they would remove some or all of his beard and/or hair (2 Samuel 10:4-5; Isaiah 7:20; 15:2; 50:6). Similarly, when men wished to symbolize their humiliation and defeat, they cut off their own hair (Jeremiah 48:37; Ezekiel 27:31; 29:18; Micah 1:16). Thus, anyone who studies the Old Testament would understand that shaving off the hair was a humiliation or disgrace.

QUESTION TO WOMEN – IS YOUR CLOTH HEAD COVERING BECOMING AN IDOL?

Many women feel that they should wear a cloth head covering when coming to the Church or when seeing a Pastor or while praying, so much so that the cloth head covering itself has become an unavoidable, involuntary tradition and in fact almost an idol. Some women even feel closer to Godliness and more acceptable with God, as if their prayers are being heard better when they wear a cloth head covering. The Apostle John warns us against things that could become idols (1 John 5:21). Has the cloth head covering become an idol? Try to question and examine yourself with the following questions…

Do I place special power in my cloth head covering?

Do I feel that the cloth head covering provides me with some mystical connection with God?

Do I feel holy or more holy if I wear the cloth head covering?

Do I feel less of a woman or less worthy if I go before God without head covering?

Do I find to identify myself as child of God in wearing a head covering?

Do I feel that if I do not wear head covering, “I am dishonoured”, “I am afraid”, “I am sinning”, etc.?

Do I feel that God will not hear my prayers, or will not speak to me if I did not cover my head with a cloth?

If the answer is “yes”, to the above questions, then you are reducing the power and characteristics of God, in that He is only able to communicate to you, if you wear the cloth head covering. Think and reason. Is the work of God – the work of Jesus – not sufficient to take you to the Father, and give access to the Father? Do we need a man-made cloth covering to stand before God? Evaluate your faith. (Rom. 5:1-2; Heb. 10:19). Jesus paid the ultimate price for us to stand before the throne of grace. Not that we did anything, not that the cloth head covering is anything. If we are wearing a cloth head covering other than for convenience or comfort, we are indirectly denying the efficacious power of Jesus’ sacrifice.

Such women should also ask themselves, what constitutes a church? Is it only when someone prays or prophesies? Or is it a church even when just 2 or 3 assemble together? Are we the church, only when we speak bible subjects and topics or, are we the church when we speak otherwise too? Then, if we decide to wear the head covering, should we wear only when we do bible study, or should we wear the head covering when another brother or “new creation” is around? Then if that is the case, then the women should have to wear head covering when another new creation is around. If married, with husband who is also a new creation, she needs to wear it. If with mother or sister who is a new creation, then also she needs to wear it. As we can see, this separate head covering of women is not reasonable.

Whatever one esteems more than God or Truth, it becomes as an Idol. It can be sometimes money, car, home, relationships too, and not only statues, buildings, photos and last but not least – creeds. Sometimes, even our appetite, jewellery, clothing, bad habits, and even our cloth head covering can become an idol.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we observe that the scriptures teach – that women need not wear a separate cloth head covering and that their natural long hair is by itself the covering. If the truth from the scriptures makes you free, why should one fall back into bondage, just as the Apostle Paul warns us, “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” Gal. 5:1. These rules – women should not speak, should cover, should not do this, that – are all laws made by man (Luke 11:46). But the commandments of God, unadulterated are not a burden at all (1 John 5:3).

However, if while going to a church which has the tradition of head covering and there someone says, “please sister wear a head covering, for it dishonours the elders”. Then the sister should wear the head covering. She should use the liberty God gave her, in order to save a weak brother or sister from stumbling. 1 Cor. 10:28-33. Rom. 14:13-23.

WHY ONLY NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (NIV) TRANSLATION?

Though we do not have affinity to any specific Bible translation, we have selected the alternate NIV translation for our understanding. Why only NIV?

As we know, the scriptures were written by inspired men of God. “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 3:16-17. However, the translators of the original Hebrew and Greek text, did not translate as moved by the Holy Spirit. Thus, it is for us to compare various translations and determine which translation best conveys “the mind of Christ”. We have been given the Holy Spirit of God and through His spirit, God reveals to us, what He intends to teach us. However, the translators do not have this advantage. As we know, some translators are neutral to a concept, but some translators are biased with certain concepts or traditions. Let us review some of the instances, as listed below:

(a) The KJV translates Col. 2:9 as, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily”. Using “Godhead” here, shows that the translators are biased to trinity doctrine. The Catholic & HCSB translates the same word as “Divine nature” or “God’s nature”, which captures the thought in a better way.

(b) Similarly, for the scripture John 1:1, Bible Students generally agree that the Emphatic Diaglot gives the correct meaning, which states ‘a God’ as compared with other translations.

There may be instances, where sometimes, none of the translations bring out the exact meaning intended by the Holy Spirit, especially due to language barriers. Do note that we are only discussing on changing the translations and not the original Hebrew or Greek scriptures.

(c) Consider the various translations of 1 Cor. 7:36:

KJV: “But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of [her] age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.”

ASV: “But if any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin [daughter], if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry.”

Emphasized Bible (Rotherham’s): “If however anyone considereth it behaving unseemly towards his virginity, if he should be beyond the bloom of life,––and, thus, it ought to come about, what he chooseth, let him do,––he sinneth not: let them marry”

Darby: “But if any one think that he behaves unseemly to his virginity, if he be beyond the flower of his age, and so it must be, let him do what he will, he does not sin: let them marry.”

KJV gives a meaning of a person “acting uncomely” towards “his virgin”, probably his espoused to-be bride. ASV gives a meaning of a father marrying his own daughter! But the Emphasized Bible & Darby translation comes nearest to what the Apostle Paul communicates. It says that if a person considers his own virginity and decides to marry, it is not a sin. But none of the translators could give the exact meaning intended by the Apostle.

Thus, we see that once the concept or “mind of Christ” is understood, it becomes easier to understand and decipher the scriptural texts through the various translations, what is meant to be understood by the Holy Spirt, which is revealed by God. In the same way here, for considering the scriptures 1 Cor. 11:1-16, we first need to understand the concept through our background details, then it becomes easier to understand what the holy spirit is trying to reveal to us. By considering the text 1 Cor. 11:15, we understand that long hair is in fact the covering. Further there is no word to indicate that there is a separate cloth covering the head. Comparing the meaning, we can understand that the Apostle Paul is indeed talking about long hair as a covering for women. Moreover, he states that men should not grow long hair or be like women, and women should not have short hair or be like men, which is in harmony with the Divine commandment given in Deu. 22:5. Further we could also harmonise with the possible events that transpired leading to the shaving or short hair by women (because of the Apostle taking a vow to shave his head).

To answer the question, why we are using NIV alternative translation, it is because this translation gives the closest meaning to the thoughts conveyed by the Apostle Paul to us, through the Holy Spirit.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

“But the LORD said unto Samuel [and to all those who have ears that hear], Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; FOR MAN LOOKETH ON THE OUTWARD APPEARANCE, BUT THE LORD LOOKETH ON THE HEART.” 1 Sam. 16:7

“While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal.” 2 Cor. 4:18

“And not as Moses, [which] put a vail over his face… But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away… which [vail] is done away in Christ. But even unto this day… the vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty”. 2 Cor. 3:13-17

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision [or for that matter head covering] availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” Gal. 6:15

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, THERE IS NEITHER MALE NOR FEMALE: FOR YE ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESUS.” Gal. 3:28

“Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we [him] no more”. 2 Cor. 5:16

“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.” Rev. 2:29

By Samuel Raj Anbudaiyan ([email protected]), Church of God @ Valasaravakkam, Chennai.

[Supplement Section with English Bible Text]

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (Amplified & Corrected Translation):

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every Husband is Christ; and the head of the Wife [is] the Husband and the head of Christ [is] God. Every Husband praying or prophesying, having long hair, dishonoureth his head [which is Christ]. But every Wife that prayeth or prophesieth without long hair dishonoureth her head [Husband]: for that is even all one as if she were shaven [having short hair is as disgraceful as having head shaven]. For if the Wife be not with long hair, let her be: but if it be a shame for a Wife to be without long hair, let her keep long hair. For a Husband indeed ought not to have long hair on [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the Wife is the glory of the Husband. For the Husband is not of the Wife; but the Wife of the Husband. Neither was the Husband created for the Wife; but the Wife for the Husband. For this cause ought the Wife to have power [or authority of her Husband] on [her] head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the Husband without the Wife, neither the Wife without the Husband, in the Lord. For as the Wife [is] of the Husband, even so [is] the Husband also by the Wife; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a Wife pray unto God without long hair? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a Husband have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a Wife have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

[Supplement Section with Tamil Bible Text]

1 கொரிந்தியர் 11:2-16 (விரிவாக்கப்பட்ட திருத்தப்பட்ட மொழிபெயர்ப்பு):

சகோதரரே, நீங்கள் எல்லாவற்றிலும் என்னை நினைத்துக்கொண்டு, நான் (பவுல்) உங்களுக்கு ஒப்புவித்தபடி நீங்கள் (கொரிந்து சபை) கட்டளைகளைக் கைக்கொண்டு வருகிறதினிமித்தம் உங்களைப் புகழுகிறேன்.  ஒவ்வொரு புருஷனுக்கும் கிறிஸ்து தலையாயிருக்கிறாரென்றும், மனைவிக்குப் புருஷன் தலையாயிருக்கிறானென்றும், கிறிஸ்துவுக்குத் தேவன் தலையாயிருக்கிறாரென்றும், நீங்கள் அறியவேண்டுமென்று விரும்புகிறேன். நீளமான தலை மயிருடன் ஜெபம் அல்லது தீர்க்கதரிசனஞ் சொல்லுகிற எந்தப் புருஷனும் தன் தலையைக் (கிறிஸ்துவை) கனவீனப்படுத்துகிறான். ஆனால் நீளமான தலை மயிரில்லாமல் ஜெபம் அல்லது தீர்க்கதரிசனஞ் சொல்லுகிற எந்த மனைவியும்  தன் தலையைக் (புருஷனை) கனவீனப்படுத்துகிறாள்; அது அவளுக்குத் தலை சிரைக்கப்பட்டது போல்  தான் இருக்கும். ஒரு மனைவி நீளமான தலை மயிரில்லாதிருந்தால், அவள் தற்சமயத்திற்கு நீளமான தலை மயிரில்லாமல் இருக்கட்டும். ஆனால் தலைமயிர் கத்தரிக்கப்படுகிறதும்  சிரைக்கப்படுகிறதும் ஒரு மனைவிக்கு வெட்கமானதால், அவளுக்கு நீளமான தலை மயிர் இருக்கவேண்டும். புருஷனானவனுக்கு நீளமான தலை மயிர் இருக்கக்கூடாது, ஏனெனில் அவன் தேவனுடைய சாயலும் மகிமையுமாயிருக்கிறான். ஆனால் மனைவியானவள் புருஷனுடைய மகிமையாயிருக்கிறாள். புருஷன் மனைவியிலிருந்து தோன்றினவனல்ல, மனைவியே புருஷனிலிருந்து தோன்றினவள். புருஷன் மனைவிக்காகச் சிருஷ்டிக்கப்பட்டவனல்ல, மனைவியே புருஷனுக்காகச் சிருஷ்டிக்கப்பட்டவள். ஆகையால் தூதர்களினிமித்தம் மனைவியானவள் தன் தலையின்மேல் அதிகாரம் (புருஷனுக்கு மனைவியின் மேல் கொடுக்கப்பட்ட அதிகாரம்) வைத்திருக்க வேண்டும். ஆகிலும் கர்த்தருக்குள் மனைவியில்லாமல் புருஷனுமில்லை, புருஷனில்லாமல் மனைவியுமில்லை. மனைவியானவள் புருஷனிலிருந்து தோன்றுகிறதுபோல, புருஷனும் மனைவியினால் தோன்றுகிறான்; சகலமும் தேவனால் உண்டாயிருக்கிறது. மனைவியானவள் நீளமான தலை மயிரில்லாமல் தேவனை நோக்கி ஜெபம்பண்ணுகிறது இலட்சணமாயிருக்குமோ என்று உங்களுக்குள்ளே நிதானித்துக்கொள்ளுங்கள். புருஷன் மயிரை நீளமாய் வளர்க்கிறது அவனுக்கு கனவீனமாயிருக்கிறதென்றும், மனைவி தன் மயிரை நீளமாய் வளர்க்கிறது அவளுக்கு மகிமையாயிருக்கிறதென்றும் சுபாவமே உங்களுக்குப் போதிக்கிறதில்லையா? தலைமயிர் அவளுக்கு முக்காடாகக் கொடுக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறதே. ஆகிலும் ஒருவன் வாக்குவாதஞ்செய்ய மனதாயிருந்தால், எங்களுக்கும், தேவனுடைய சபைகளுக்கும், அப்படிப்பட்ட வழக்கமில்லையென்று அறியக்கடவன்.

Key Points:

WOMAN’S HEAD COVERING IN CHURCH – KEY POINTS

Table 1 – Is Woman’s Head Covering A Cloth?

Is it based on scriptures?	Decision
– Pastor Russell takes illustration from Priesthood, for sisters to wear head covering. But the scriptures do not support this. It is not harmonious with the closing texts of Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 11:13-15. – Head covering as in Moses is not reasonable. Based on 2 Cor. 3:12-13. – Head covering as under-priest is not scriptural, since Head Priest was also wearing a head covering. – Head covering in Old Testament represents a sign of mourning or shame or humility. – Nazarite vow represents Church’s consecration to God. We cannot take the symbol of growing the hair and apply it to the church members. It is neither scriptural nor reasonable. – Old Testament has many commands (including the Law) related to attire and hair, but not a single commandment on head covering. – Apostle Paul and Peter talk about woman’s hair (other than 1 Cor 11), but there is no mention of head covering.	Cloth head covering for Woman is not scriptural.
Is it based on reasoning?	Decision
– Jewish age is typical, and many types were given to represent the Gospel Age & Millennial age. But we cannot take a symbol from the type and apply the symbol itself literally to the Church. – Wearing Head Covering in Church: If a woman has to wear a head covering cloth in Church, then when 2 or 3 join together it is a church. Even within the family, if another member is a New Creation, the woman has to wear a cloth head covering. If the woman believes that Jesus Christ is present with her always, then she cannot remove her head covering at all. This is not reasonable. – It cannot be based on traditions or customs, as Apostle Paul or even our master Jesus did not support the traditions. If based on local traditions, then each area will have different customs and traditions, like not wearing a head covering too. – Head covering is a symbol of humility. Then all the members including the brothers have to wear it. Especially Jesus our master should have worn the symbol, which is not recorded. This reasoning is not correct.	Cloth head covering for Woman is not reasonable.

Table 2 – Is Woman’s Head Covering Her Long Hair?

Is it based on scriptures?	Decision
– Yes in 1 Cor 11:13-15 it is confirmed. – It is harmonious with other scriptures where natural hair is seen as beauty, while shaving the head as humiliation or dishonour. – The Greek text for covering means cover down fully. Hence head covering means, cover down fully from head, which is natural long hair. Also uncovered is the opposite of long hair, which is short hair.	Long hair as covering is scriptural
Is it based on reasoning?	Decision
– Yes, it is reasonable, within the church man and woman are equal and are to be natural. There is no need for an external symbol to distinguish between man and woman.	Long hair as covering is reasonable.
Is it aligned with Nature or Science	Decision
– Yes, it is scientifically accepted that by nature, woman have longer hair growth than man, as God designed it.	Long hair as covering is by nature.
Is it aligned with the teachings for Church?	Decision
– Yes, God does not see the outward appearance, but the inner man. Or New Creation is all that matters. There is no Man or Woman in New Creation.	Long hair as covering is aligned with the teachings for Church.

The key to understanding is to have the correct translation and exposition of the concerned scriptures. 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (Amplified & Corrected Text):

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every Husband is Christ; and the head of the Wife [is] the Husband and the head of Christ [is] God. Every Husband praying or prophesying, having long hair, dishonoureth his head [which is Christ]. But every Wife that prayeth or prophesieth without long hair dishonoureth her head [Husband]: for that is even all one as if she were shaven [having short hair is as disgraceful as having head shaven]. For if the Wife be not with long hair, let her be: but if it be a shame for a Wife to be without long hair, let her keep long hair. For a Husband indeed ought not to have long hair on [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the Wife is the glory of the Husband. For the Husband is not of the Wife; but the Wife of the Husband. Neither was the Husband created for the Wife; but the Wife for the Husband. For this cause ought the Wife to have power [or authority of her Husband] on [her] head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the Husband without the Wife, neither the Wife without the Husband, in the Lord. For as the Wife [is] of the Husband, even so [is] the Husband also by the Wife; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a Wife pray unto God without long hair? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a Husband have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a Wife have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

---

[1] (1) Tabernacle Shadows of the “Better Sacrifices”, Chapter II – Israelites, Levites And The Priesthood, Section The Under-Priest–“The Body” Page T36, and (2) Studies in the Scriptures Volume VI – The New Creation, Study V – The Organisation of New Creation, Section “Let Her Be Covered” Page T271].

[2] In scriptures, however, we do not have evidence for this. On the contrary we read in Lev. 16:3-4, “Thus shall Aaron come into the holy [place]: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these [are] holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and [so] put them on.” Also, in Eze. 44:15-19, “But the priests the Levites…  they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood… They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads… And when they go forth into the utter court, [even] into the utter court to the people, they shall put off their garments wherein they ministered, and lay them in the holy chambers, and they shall put on other garments”.

[3] Studies in the Scriptures, Volume VI, Study X, The Baptism of the New Creation, Section “Baptism into Christ’s Death” Page F436-437. By Pastor Charles Taze Russell.