Many coming into the faith ask about head coverings for men. For those who may not know, the head covering, also known as a Kippah (Hebrew for “cover”) and Yarmulke (the Yiddish word for Kippah), is that small, round little hat that Jewish men wear. Some more religious Jews wear it every day everywhere, and some only at synagogue, but regardless, the Kippah is one of the foremost identifying features of religious Judaism.
The question from Torah observant believers in Jesus is, “Why do you wear a Kippah?” This is a fair question since, again, the kippah is more of a Jewish practice and not one of historical Christianity or anybody outside of Judaism. The question is often paired with quoting the verse from 1 Corinthians 11 concerning head coverings and how men shouldn’t be wearing them.
First, please note this is not meant to be an exhaustive commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, but it will cover the "wave tops” of that passage. The focus of this article is beyond 1 Corinthians 11, but it will give you enough information to understand the passage more clearly and to be able to research the topic further if you so choose.
1 Corinthians 11:2-16
Here is the passage in question as translated most commonly:
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own[c] head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.13 Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God. (NIV)
To the casual reader, this passage may seem disjointed, alluding to various customs from head coverings to hair lengths, and invoking both authority and angels. Such apparent randomness begs the question of whether crucial context is missing—context that would render the discussion coherent. This should make the reader stop and consider that there is a key piece of information missing to make this more cohesive. The Greek is strangely written, in such a way that the writer appears to assume the read already knows what he is talking about.
Historical and Cultural Perspective
Within Judaism, it is customary for men to don the kippah, while married women traditionally cover their hair. Ancient Judaic culture viewed long hair on men or short/shorn hair on women as tantamount to cross-dressing. The Torah itself disparages the uncovering of a married woman's hair, as illustrated by the Sotah ritual—the "bitter waters."
Sotah
In Numbers 5:11-31, there’s a peculiar set of rituals surrounding an instance of a suspected unfaithful wife and the drinking of “bitter waters.” In summary, if a husband suspects adultery and is so overwhelmed by the suspicion that it consumes him (“spirit of jealousy”), then the Torah offers a way for the woman to prove herself innocent or otherwise confess. Right before the woman's part of the ritual begins, the priest “lets down her hair.”
After the priest has the woman stand before the Lord, he is to let down her hair [d] and place in her hands the grain offering for remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. The priest is to hold the bitter water that brings a curse. (Numbers 5:18 HCSB)
In the HCSB the footnote [d] reads “to uncover her head.” The head covering over a woman signifies her marital status, like a wedding ring does for us today. To remove it is considered very shameful, and in this way, because she is highly suspected of committing adultery (which likely came about because of some witnessed inappropriate behavior), she is shamed for this.
The Mishnah extends this notion, considering it shameful for a married woman to appear in public without a head covering, even using it as a ground for divorce.
And these are examples of women who may be divorced without payment of their marriage contract: A woman who violates the precepts of Moses, i.e., halakha, or the precepts of Jewish women, i.e., custom….And who is considered a woman who violates the precepts of Jewish women? One who, for example, goes out of her house, and her head, i.e., her hair, is uncovered; (m.Ketubot 7:6)
The Mishnah, talking about a married woman who wants to become a Nazarite and take the Nazarite vow, offers instances in which a husband can overrule her ability to take such a vow and on what grounds he could do so. A shaved-headed woman is listed as one example of a valid reason to nullify her ability to take the vow because a shorn woman is considered very shameful.
Rabbi Meir says: He can nullify her vow even at the stage of her shaving of purity, after she has begun sacrificing her offerings, as he can say: "I do not want a shaven wife,” because a nazirite is obligated to shave after bringing his or her offerings. (m.Nazir 4.5)
In Paul’s day, the idea of a married woman without a head covering on or any woman, married or not, with a shaved head is “disgusting” to him. The language Paul uses here is that of disgust; its tone and rhetoric suggest as much. So then, how exactly is this relevant to the issue of a man wearing a kippah?
This context lays part of the groundwork for understanding the subject of the passage. The fact is that this passage has nothing to do with a head covering at all, except in passing as a comparative example for women. This passage is all about hair.
Men With Long Hair
Look at Paul's focus in the passage. It is primarily on the length of the hair on a man is evident in the language. Firstly, in the Greek, Paul makes no mention of a “garment covering” of any sort in the passage at all except in verse 6 when speaking of women. Verse 4 in Greek reads literally like this:
“Any man praying or prophesying with down on his head disgraces his head.”
The phrase in question is the “down on his head” portion. The Greek phrase is strange according to Tim Hegg, who notes that the verb “on his” has no direct object, and so many translations insert an object for clarity, either “something” or “covering” typically. But the word “covering” is not there at all, it’s not even present in verse 7 which is usually translated as:
“A man ought not to have his head covered…”
In verse 7, the word translated as “covered” is a particular verb found in Greek, which is also used elsewhere in the LXX (Greek translation of the Torah). In the laws of Tzara’at (usually translated as 'leprosy') in Leviticus 13:45, it commands that a man with the disease must have his hair “unkempt,” “let down,” or “grow out.” The Hebrew (paru’a) for this word is used to describe long hair, and the corresponding Greek word in the LXX is the same wording that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 11.
The translators of the NIV included a footnote on verse 7 that gives an alternate reading of verses 4-7. It appears that the translators of the NIV are aware of the intended meaning of the verses, and so they provided an alternative translation which clarifies as such:
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering of hair dishonors her head—she is just like one of the “shorn women.” 6 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. 7 A man ought not to have long hair (NIV footnote on 1 Corinthians 11:4-7)
Note: For more in-depth information on this, I recommend reading this article by Tim Hegg.
Finally, the clues are actually within the text itself, as verses 14-15, further clarify the subject which Paul is concerned with.
Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15 but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.
This conclusion effectively resolves any ambiguities that may have arisen from the initial sections. It is important to note that Paul's writing style presupposes a certain level of pre-existing knowledge on the part of the reader. He does not explicitly state, in unambiguous terms, that "men should not wear a head covering." Rather, his discourse appears to be more focused on the topic of hair length in men, drawing a comparison with the customary practices and natural tendencies concerning women's hair. Through this comparison, Paul illustrates the notion that it is considered dishonorable for a man to have long hair, akin to a woman's appearance.
The Judaic prohibitions against cross-dressing extend beyond mere attire, encompassing the broader aspect of personal presentation. For instance, the combination of a clean-shaven face and long hair is deemed feminine and thus considered inappropriate for a man. Paul's writings seem to focus on reinforcing appropriate gender roles and marriage practices, which would likely be unfamiliar to the newly converted Gentile believers.
Considering that Corinth was a Roman province, it is noteworthy to mention the Romans' engagement in unconventional sexual practices, markedly different from the Jewish way of life. These practices included frequent instances of cross-dressing. Roman women were also known for their distinctive style of wearing short hair, typically uncovered. In this context, Paul appears to be reinforcing synagogue customs, instructing married women to cover their heads, unmarried women to maintain long hair, and men to adopt a traditionally masculine appearance with short hair. This guidance was aimed at maintaining clear distinctions in gender presentation, in accordance with what is believed to be divine intention.
Paul's teachings to the Corinthians were not meant to encourage the abandonment of Jewish practices. On the contrary, he was advocating for their observance. In verse 2, he commends the community for adhering to the traditions as he had imparted them. Paul expected all believers, whether Jewish or Gentile, to respect the traditions and customs of the synagogue, and by extension, Judaism as a whole.
Having clarified that Paul's discussions in his letter to the Corinthians do not pertain to garment head coverings such as hats or kippahs, it is now appropriate to transition to the reasons why someone might choose to wear one.
The Nation of Priests
In the Torah, there is specific instruction for priests to wear a head covering while performing their duties in the Mishkan (Tabernacle), and later in the Temple. Among these coverings, the most distinguished is the headpiece worn by the high priest, known as the "tzitz" in Hebrew. This priestly crown includes a golden plate inscribed with the words "Holy to the L-rd." Notably, it is fastened using a blue thread (techelet), which is the same blue used in the fringes or tassels (tzitzit) on the four corners of the outer garments worn by all Jewish men, not exclusively by priests. This connection establishes a symbolic link between the head covering and the tzitzit mentioned in Numbers 15, which are still worn by Jews and many Messianic believers today.
The Jewish people aspire to fulfill the role of a "Kingdom of Priests," a concept articulated by G-d at Mount Sinai in Exodus 19:6. Consequently, Jewish sages often implemented practices that reflect those of the priests, with profound underlying reasons. For instance, the dining table in a Jewish home is regarded as a symbolic altar, mirroring the altar in the Temple. This symbolism is particularly evident during Sabbath, where bread is always accompanied by salt, echoing the requirement for salt in every offering at the altar. In this way, the altar in the Temple is perceived as G-d's table, and through the offerings, there is a shared table fellowship with Hashem (G-d).
The verse began with the word “altar” and ended with the word “table,” both words describing the same item. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say the following exposition: When the Temple is standing the altar atones for a person; now that the Temple has been destroyed, it is a person’s table that atones for him, for his feeding of needy guests atones for his sins. (b.Hagigah 27a)
The association between the dining table and the altar has profound implications, shaping many of the table fellowship etiquettes practiced by the Pharisees, and as observed, by Jesus as well. These practices are grounded in the duties of the priests at the altar.
Consequently, table fellowship serves not only as a remembrance of the Temple but also as a form of solidarity with the priesthood. In this context, each individual assumes the role of a priest within their own home, with the dining table serving as a personal altar. It is, therefore, incumbent upon individuals to conduct themselves in a manner befitting this role.
This concept is further exemplified in other rituals such as the netilat yadayim, the ceremonial washing of hands, before consuming bread. Similarly, the recitation of kiddush over wine during Sabbath is rooted in this symbolic parallel. Just as a priest is required to wear his ceremonial garments, including a head covering, while performing his duties, these rituals reflect a similar adherence to tradition and respect for the sanctity of the practices.
The Daily Reminder
This head covering served as a reminder that the Shechinah (Divine Presence/Holy Spirit) resides over our heads, symbolizing our obligation to be "holy to the L-rd" (As the golden plate on the priestly crown stated). This concept is documented in the Talmud, specifically in Kiddushin 31a, where it underscores the spiritual significance of the head covering in maintaining a constant awareness of the Divine Presence.
The Gemara relates: Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, would not walk four cubits with an uncovered head. He said: The Divine Presence is above my head, and I must act respectfully.
In Western cultures, the wearing of a head covering can sometimes be perceived as disrespectful, depending on the context. Examples include wearing a hat indoors or during a national anthem or a hat at the dinner table. However, in Jewish tradition, the perspective is quite the opposite. In the presence of a king, it is highly disrespectful and improper to not be fully clothed, including the head covering. How much more so to be lax in front of the King of Kings!? This view is derived from the Torah's instructions to the priests in the Mishkan (Tabernacle), emphasizing the importance of appropriate attire. Even in modern times, Judaism holds it to be highly inappropriate to recite a blessing without some form of head covering.
Like the tzitzit described in Numbers 15, the kippah (or any head covering) is intended as a constant reminder of Hashem and the commandment. The language used to describe both signifies their interconnectedness, serving as perpetual reminders that they go hand in hand with one another.
Additionally, adherence to synagogue customs was a matter of importance to Paul. Historical evidence suggests that, in the first century, head coverings were primarily used during prayer, such as with a talit (prayer shawl), and it is indicated that only religious men wore a kippah-like covering throughout the day. The Talmud seems to suggest that at one point only married men wore a kippah daily, but over time, it became customary and then obligatory for all religious men.
In the context of religious observance, adherence to the teachings of the Master Yeshua (Jesus) becomes pivotal, particularly his directive for obedience to the Pharisees, as noted in Matthew 23:2-3. This guidance is complemented by the words of Paul, who emphasized the importance of upholding synagogue traditions. Considering Paul's background as a Pharisee and a "chaver" — a term denoting a fellow Pharisee distinguished by piety — it is reasonable to conclude that he, too, would have donned a kippah or a similar head covering throughout the day. As Paul said:
Imitate me, as I also imitate Messiah. (1 Corinthians 11:1)
Thus, it's not far-fetched to assume Yeshua himself also wore a type of kippah, aligning with the customs and practices of his time. This historical probability aids in our understanding of Yeshua and gives those who 'imitate him' another way to be more of a mirror image and radiate the "spirit" of Messiah from within themselves.
Negotiating With Work
Whether we like it or not, perception is indeed reality for most people in the world. For someone adhering to orthodox standards of Judaism, as guided by the teachings of Yeshua, the lack of outward Jewish appearance can lead to confusion. It can also cause issues in daily life as well.
Consider a scenario where an individual, not commonly seen wearing a kippah, requests time off for Passover. Such a request may be met with skepticism or a barrage of questions from superiors, casting doubt on the authenticity of the religious observance. This situation, whether legally justifiable or not, breeds confusion and could be misconstrued as an attempt to exploit religious excuses for additional days off. Outwardly, it would appear as if your "faith" is merely rooted in convenience and sprouts only if there is a material benefit.
Conversely, the consistent wearing of a kippah can establish an understanding of religious commitments from the onset, even as early as a job interview. This visible sign of faith can lead to automatic accommodations, such as being granted Shabbat off without the need for explicit requests, smooth approval for Passover holidays, and possibly even considerations for Chanukah observances. The presence of the kippah not only reinforces the sincerity of one's religious observance but also simplifies professional life by preempting potential misunderstandings. This creates a total outward display of dedication and seriousness towards your faith, and it is beyond just materialistic desires.
Moreover, the daily wearing of a kippah has broader implications, such as in the observance of kosher laws. For instance, a boss, regularly seeing an employee with a kippah, becomes more mindful of that individual's dietary restrictions. This awareness often translates into thoughtful accommodations, like ensuring kosher options during office meals. Interestingly, the mere act of wearing a kippah can subtly remind others of religious presence and considerations, extending the impact of personal faith practices into the broader work environment.
The kippah isn't just for the wearer though. The simple act of wearing a kippah has an impact on everyone around. It causes others to think about G-d when they see it. The body, likened to a sacred temple, is crowned by the kippah, serving as a luminous beacon at its pinnacle. This symbol stands as a powerful declaration from the divine, echoing the call of "Return to Me," for those who are far and "I am with you" for those who are near.
Putting on the kippah is like a young prince donning a crown; it is a tangible symbol of his father, the king's authority and guidance. It represents not just a mark of royalty but a profound bond of unity. As the prince wears the crown throughout his father's kingdom, he carries with him the weight and honor of his father's legacy, signifying a continuous, unbreakable connection between them. This crown, much like the kippah, mirrors the sacred crown of the High Priest, symbolizing a profound and eternal connection to the Divine.
Bridging The Gap
A central reason for adopting the kippah isn't just about personal style preferences; it is about representing Yeshua (Jesus) not only to the wider world but also within the Jewish community. At Altarnate Media, the belief is firmly held that Yeshua advocated for a spirit of obedience, rather than rebellion, towards the religious authorities. Despite his critiques, Yeshua instructed his disciples to adhere to the teachings of the Pharisees, cautioning them only against hypocrisy.
The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat (religious authority), so do and observe whatever they tell you, but do not do as they do. For they do not practice what they teach. (Matthew 23:2-3)
Furthermore, it is believed that Yeshua himself meticulously followed the highest level of orthodox practices of his time. Thus, representing Yeshua authentically means embodying an Orthodox Jewish lifestyle. This approach facilitates meaningful and thoughtful dialogue with Orthodox Jews, who may be intrigued by such a lifestyle choice.
From a Jewish perspective, Gentiles are not traditionally obligated to follow Torah practices. Consequently, when a non-Jew voluntarily embraces and upholds these commandments, particularly to an Orthodox standard, it often prompts a curious inquiry: "Why?" This question opens a window for deeper discussion and mutual understanding, and the ability to bridge the gap.
We cannot stress this enough, this is not a missionary effort to make converts! That is not the intention. The true intention is to introduce a lesser-known perspective of Yeshua, often referred to as an "Orthodox Jesus." The common Jewish perception is that the Messiah should promote greater adherence to Torah. However, there's a prevailing view that Jesus diminished the Torah's importance among his followers. Many Jews perceive contemporary Christianity as antithetical to Torah principles, suggesting that if disciples mirror their leader, then Jesus himself is seen as one who abandoned Torah, contradicting the very essence of a messiah.
However, when disciples of Yeshua embrace and rigorously practice Torah, as he did, they present a more accurate representation of the historical "Jesus," thereby reinstating his messianic legitimacy. By doing this, we open up for a conversation to be had by both parties to better understand one another.
Historically, in Paul's time, Jews and Gentiles worshiped together under the same roof in synagogues. Christianity and Judaism were not distinctly separate religions until the second century. More importantly, Jews and Gentiles, irrespective of their belief in the same messiah, co-worshipped. Paul, rather than opposing this, hoped that through shared obedience, they might come to recognize Yeshua as the Messiah. Meanwhile, he encouraged believers to remain part of the Jewish community.
Once again, it is imperative to emphasize that this is not a missionary endeavor. The goal is not to 'win over' Jews by appearing 'more Jewish.' The history of the messianic movement is unfortunately plagued by instances of deceitful 'infiltrators', where individuals attempted to blend in with Jewish communities only to later promote their own beliefs. Such tactics are considered abhorrent, dishonest, and a stain to the community. There should be 100% transparency with Jewish people. This honesty coupled with an orthodox lifestyle, will hopefully open up channels of conversation and understanding.
When questioned about this way of life, the response is simple and sincere: “This is done in the spirit of emulating the man named Yeshua, whom I recognize as the Messiah. My intent is to live a life that reflects his, out of love for G-d and a desire to serve Him to the best of my abilities.”
Learning From “Big Brother”
Christianity, in its early stages, was essentially a sect within Judaism, closely aligned with the Pharisaic tradition. This sect shared beliefs with the Pharisees, indicating a deep-rooted connection with Jewish doctrines and practices. This historical context suggests that there is considerable knowledge to be gained from the Jewish faith, a tradition intrinsically linked to the roots of Christianity. Regardless of whether one identifies with conventional Christianity, it is essential to recognize that the foundation of the Christian faith is inherently Jewish. The gradual divergence of Christianity from its Jewish origins, primarily due to a distancing from Jewish practices and beliefs, led to its evolution into a distinct religion, eventually becoming almost unrecognizable from its original state.
If Jesus were to return today, his appearance and practices, akin to those of an Orthodox Jew, would likely be so unfamiliar to many Christians that they wouldn't recognize him. Conversely, Jesus himself might find his own "followers" unrecognizable, their customs and appearances vastly different from his own. In this hypothetical scenario, he might feel more closely aligned with the ambiance of a Chabad house than that of a typical church.
This potential disconnect highlights a crucial point emphasized by Paul in Romans 11. He cautioned against the dismissal of Judaism, teaching the concept of Christians being like grafted branches into the tree of Israel. Importantly, Paul advised humility and respect towards the original branches, emphasizing that boasting over those that were broken off is not the intended spirit of this integration.
do not consider yourself to be superior to those other branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. (Romans 11:18 NIV)
The phrase, “You do not support the root, but the root supports you,” captures a fundamental and important truth. This religion is not a creation of its later followers; it is inherently and historically Jewish. It is not up to the grafted branches to nourish the root; it is not capable; the root is the one who nourishes. The Jewish people are the foundational root of this faith. It is essential, therefore, that learners and followers glean wisdom from this root, rather than presuming to instruct it. The question of agreement on who the messiah is, while largely irrelevant, does not diminish the importance of respecting the authority and seniority of the Jewish tradition in matters of faith.
When a father puts the older brother in charge while he is away, you (as the younger brother) listen to the older brother in charge. You may not necessarily agree with every decision the oldest brother makes, but you should be careful to listen anyway, and dad will sort it out when he gets back. We have to trust that the father put the older brother in charge for a reason. We have to trust that the older brother knows more about the father's intentions better than we do. We are the newly adopted child in this house, and as it turns out we don’t know the father all that well, we practically just met him. G-d is clearly the father in this example, and the Jewish people are the older brother. G-d’s own words speak about the authority that belongs to Judah.
The scepter will not pass from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he to whom it belongs will come. To him will be the obedience of the peoples. (Genesis 49:10 TLV)
The tribe of Judah holds a significant place in the etymology and history of the term "Jew." Within some translations, there is mention of "until Shiloh comes," a phrase believed by many Christians and Jews to refer to the Messiah. This Messiah is envisioned as the ultimate redeemer, a conquering king who will restore Israel and herald the Messianic Age. When Yeshua was present on Earth, he did not assume the role of a king, explicitly rejecting such a title. Therefore, until his prophesied return as the sovereign, the scepter of authority remains with Judah, the Jewish people.
Conclusion
The wearing of the kippah is a practice steeped in deep religious significance and thoughtful consideration. It is not a decision taken lightly or applied casually. After years of contemplation and consultation with Jewish individuals about the appropriateness of wearing a kippah as a non-Jew, the consensus was not only encouraging but also supportive. It was emphasized that while wearing a kippah is not an obligation for non-Jews, except in synagogues where it is asked to be worn a sign of respect, it is a meaningful expression of one's serious commitment to the religion.
Far from being exclusive to Jews, the kippah was never regarded as a "for Jews only" item. I (Seamus, at Altarnate Media) had a particularly memorable experience at an Orthodox synagogue (shul), my query about wearing a kippah led to the warm gesture of being gifted a beautiful black leather kippah with a blessing written on the inside in gold lettering, as well as numerous invitations to enjoin them in Shabbat meals. Everybody knew I wasn’t Jewish, I made that clear. It didn’t matter, and I wear this Kippah proudly to this very day.
Comments