Female Modesty

There are very few professing Christians who earnestly seek to learn the truth about God’s requirements for salvation, and even fewer who are willing to put those commands into practice once they discover what those commands are. There have been various small movements since the protestant reformation which claim to have rediscovered the importance of the veil Paul commanded women to wear in 1 Corinthians 11, and have tried to bring back a high standard of female modesty, but all of these groups are failing to use ancient tradition as their point of reference and are instead BARELY improving on modern cultural norms. And thus, none of them are truly practicing female modesty or headship because not one of them understands the true purpose or meaning of Paul’s words. Even the most adamant of these groups will still allow their women to dress as harlots, and it is these groups we will be addressing today: the orthodox church, the catholic church, anabaptist groups like the Amish and Mennonites, Lutherans, Anglicans, and the Moravian church, because these denominations still practice some form of head covering.

Many women who have lately become convicted to cover their heads in obedience to God’s command have taken to social media to post pictures of themselves bearing their newfound modesty, with their faces fully exposed, wearing makeup, and posing in immodest clothing. Whenever a book is written urging women to wear the veil, they leave reviews on those websites selling the book, talking about how they now happily yield to God’s command for them to be covered up, and then they post pictures of themselves dressed as harlots. These websites frequently quote the early church fathers to support their cause, but they completely ignore the church fathers’ description of the veil, and they expect US to ignore it as well; namely, that the veil was not at all a vague symbol of headship, but an unmistakable expression of modesty.

Those who wear small, transparent doilies are not fulfilling the command given in Scripture, but are following a man-made dress code. It’s necessary to rebuke this counterfeit veil because it is a creation of Satan, and we must not be deceived into thinking the Amish and the Mennonites have achieved God’s high standard for modesty, just because they wear little caps, vests, and aprons on Sunday. Rather, we should notice the lack of any real veil on their head, and that they go around barefoot and bare-legged in public.

 

In this video, we will destroy the ambiguous, modern version of the doctrine of headship, about the veil being a doily on the head that merely “symbolizes” authority without actually covering the head in any significant way; we’ll explain what true headship is, which is when a woman allows her husband to represent her, while she hides her own face; and we’ll show the ancient church’s definition of female modesty, which is inseparable from covering the head.

When Paul mentions the veil, he uses a variation of the same Greek root every time. It is the Greek word kalupto, which means “to cover” or “to conceal.”

Any man who prays or prophesies with anything on his head dishonors his head. – 1 Corinthians 11:4

but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (ἀκατακαλύπτῳ) dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. – 1 Corinthians 11:5

For if a woman will not cover (κατακαλύπτεται) herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her cover (κατακαλυπτέσθω) herself. – 1 Corinthians 11:6

For a man ought not to cover (κατακαλύπτεσθαι) his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. – 1 Corinthians 11:7

For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. – 1 Corinthians 11:8

Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. – 1 Corinthians 11:9

For this reason, a woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels. – 1 Corinthians 11:10

Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; – 1 Corinthians 11:11

for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. – 1 Corinthians 11:12

Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God uncovered (ἀκατακάλυπτον)? – 1 Corinthians 11:13

Does not nature itself teach you that for a man to have long hair is a shame to him, – 1 Corinthians 11:14

but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering (περιβολαίου). – 1 Corinthians 11:15

But if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have not such a practice, nor do the churches of God. – 1 Corinthians 11:16

Here, Paul uses four variations of the same Greek root kalupto – ἀκατακαλύπτῳ, κατακαλυπτέσθω, κατακαλύπτεται, and ἀκατακάλυπτον – all of which refer to a kind of covering. Don’t be confused by the slight differences between each word; in Greek, you will often see different forms and inflections being used to make a word more specific in its description. Understand that these variations are simply explaining HOW something is being covered – whether it’s being covered with a cloth, or being draped with something from above, or wrapped around the sides – but in all cases, whenever the Greek root kalupto is incorporated into a word, it always dictates a covering.

In verse 15, Paul uses a new word, peribolaion, which is a type of shawl or garment, and he says the hair was given to women to act as a natural shawl or shroud enveloping their heads, a type of biological clothing, which obviously implies that God wishes for women to cover their heads. For the same reason it would be disgraceful for a woman to have this natural covering shaved off, it’s also disgraceful for a woman not to wear a veil, because both long hair and a veil serve the same purpose: to hide the head underneath. But long hair doesn’t hide the head perfectly; hence the veil.

If you’re not sure this kalupto veil is a separate piece of clothing, and you suspect long hair might serve as an adequate covering, there are many reasons why you’re wrong, and we’re not going to list them all here. But we will provide the most obvious argument disproving that notion. In verse 6, Paul says:

For if a woman will not cover (κατακαλύπτεται) herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her cover (κατακαλυπτέσθω) herself. – 1 Corinthians 11:6

Now, if Paul is really saying that a woman’s long hair is the only covering she needs, then this statement of his makes no sense. Try reading this verse as if he were referring to long hair versus short hair, and see what the result is:

6 For if a woman only has short hair, then she should cut her hair short; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have short hair or be shaven, let her have long hair. – 1 Corinthians 11:6

This is a nonsensical statement. If the woman doesn’t have long hair, her hair is already cut short, so when Paul makes a comparison between two things, it’s not possible that he would be repeating himself. How can short hair be cut short again? This need not be said except to a very stubborn person. Paul is clearly talking about a veil being applied in addition to long hair, because he uses the word peribolaion to describe the rudimentary veil God gives all women, and kalupto to describe the superior veil.

Many other words in our English language are derived from this same root word, kalupto. For instance, the book of Revelation originally went by the name The Apocalypse of John, and unfortunately, because Revelation contains prophecies of destruction, people today have come to assume the word “apocalypse” means the end of the world or a series of catastrophic events, but “apocalypse” actually just means “to uncover what’s hidden.” It comes from the Greek word apo, which means to “take away” or “take off” and kalupto, which means “to cover, to hide, or to conceal.” So apocalypse literally translates as “to reveal what is hidden.”

This word, apocalyptis, which is the removal of the same “covering” Paul refers to, also clearly shows that the veil is supposed to HIDE the head underneath it, not simply rest on a small part of it. Understand, that’s the definition of the word. There is no such thing as a “kalupto” veil that only covers a small portion of anything. That would contradict the definition of the word. Nor could a veil be made of a transparent material, as most of the doilies are made of today. Imagine that, if the dividing curtain which separated the Holy of Holies from the people outside had been made of transparent material, so that people could see through it! That’s insane to suggest. And yet protestants love to harp on the fact that God tore down the dividing veil that hid the ark of the covenant from outside observers. As you will soon realize, if something has been kalupto’d, it’s no longer visible. In other words, the head-covering Paul is referring to covers the entire head, much like the Muslim burqa or niqab.

There can be no doubt that this is the true definition of the head-covering because the root word “kalupto” occurs very frequently in the Old Testament, and always in the same context. In fact, this word appears in the Septuagint over 300 times! We’re not going to quote all 300 instances in this video, because the meaning is quite clear after reading only a few examples. You don’t have to be a genius to figure out what kalupto means. All you need is a good and honest heart. Now let us read these quotes and see if we can identify a pattern.

 

OLD TESTAMENT

Exodus 26: 34 – And you shall screen (κατακαλυψεις) with the veil the ark of the testimony in the holy of holies.

Numbers 4:5 – And when the camp sets forward, Aaron shall come, and his sons, and they shall take down the covering veil (κατακαλυπτω), and cover the ark of testimony with it:

Exodus 34:30-33 – And when Aaron and all the people of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him. But Moses called to them; and Aaron and all the leaders of the congregation returned to him, and Moses talked with them. And afterward all the people of Israel came near, and he gave them in commandment all that the Lord had spoken with him in Mount Sinai. And when Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil (κάλυμμα) on his face; but whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he took the veil (κάλυμμα) off, until he came out; and when he came out, and told the people of Israel what he was commanded, the people of Israel saw the face of Moses, that the skin of Moses’ face shone; and Moses would put the veil (κάλυμμα) upon his face again, until he went in to speak with him.

Genesis 7:19: The waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth. All the high mountains that were under the whole sky were covered (ἐπεκάλυψεν).

Genesis 7:20: The waters prevailed fifteen cubits upward, and the mountains were covered (επεκαλυψεν).

Exodus 14:26: The Lord said to Moses, “Stretch out your hand over the sea, and let the water restore and cover (ἐπικαλυψάτω) the Egyptians, on their chariots, and the horse riders.

Exodus 14:28: The waters returned, and covered (ἐκάλυψεν) the chariots and the horsemen, even all Pharaoh’s army….

Proverbs 28:13: He who conceals (ἐπικαλύπτων) his sins doesn’t prosper, but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy.

Genesis 9:23: Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it on both their shoulders, went in backwards, and covered (συνεκάλυψαν) the nakedness of their father. Their faces were backwards, and they didn’t see their father’s nakedness.

Exodus 10:4-5: I will bring forth many locusts over all your borders, and they shall cover (καλύψει) the surface of the earth, so that one won’t be able to see the earth. 

Numbers 16:33: So they, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into hades: and the earth closed (καλυπτω) on them, and they perished from among the assembly.

Numbers 22:11: Behold this people has come out of Egypt and behold, it covers (κεκάλυφεν) the whole view of the land and has encamped right in front of me, and now come and curse it for me in order that I might be able to smite it and cast it out of this land.’”

1 Kings 21:4: Ahab came into his house sullen and angry because of the word which Naboth the Jezreelite had spoken to him; for he had said, “I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers.” He laid himself down on his bed, and covered (συνεκάλυψεν) his face, and would eat no bread.

Sirach 26:8: A drunken woman causes great wrath. She will not cover (συγκαλύψει) her own shame.

Psalm 32:0-1: Blessed are those whose infringements are forgiven, and whose sins are covered over (ἐπεκαλύφθησαν).

Psalm 44:19: Though you have crushed us in the haunt of jackals, and covered (ἐπεκάλυψεν) us with the shadow of death…

Sirach 39:22: His blessing covered (ἐπεκάλυψεν) the dry land as a river and saturated it as a flood.

Sirach 47:15: Your influence covered (ἐπεκάλυψεν) the earth, and you filled it with parables and riddles.

Jeremiah 3:25: Let us lie down in our shame, and let our disgrace cover (ἐπεκάλυψεν) us; for we have sinned against Yahweh our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even to this day. We have not obeyed the voice of Yahweh our God.”

Exodus 21:33: “If a man opens a pit, or if a man digs a pit and doesn’t cover (καλύψῃ) it, and a bull or a donkey falls into it….”

Ezekiel 32:7: When I shall extinguish you, I will cover (κατακαλύψω) the heavens, and make its stars dark; I will cover (καλύψω) the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light.

1 Samuel 19:13: Michal took the teraphim, and laid it in the bed, and put a pillow of goats’ hair at its head, and covered (ἐκάλυψεν) it with the clothes.

1 Kings 19:13: It was so, when Elijah heard it, that he hid (ἐπεκάλυψεν) his face in his sheepskin, and went out, and stood in the entrance of the cave. Behold, a voice came to him, and said, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

1 Samuel 28:8: Saul disguised (συνεκάλυψεν) himself, and put on other clothing, and went, he and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night: and he said, “Please divine to me by the familiar spirit, and bring me up whoever I shall name to you.”

1 Kings 22:30: The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “I will disguise (συγκαλύψομαι) myself, and go into the battle; but you put on your robes.” The king of Israel disguised (συνεκαλύψατο) himself, and went into the battle.

Sirach 23:18: A man who goes astray from his own marriage bed says in his heart, “Who sees me? Darkness is around me, and the walls hide (καλύπτουσιν) me. No one sees me. Of whom am I afraid? The Most High will not remember my sins.”

 

WOMEN WEARING VEILS:

Can there be any doubt as to the meaning of this word? Does it sound like a Mennonite head cap? Or a tiny lace cloth? Perhaps a transparent sheet? Or does it sound like a covering which completely obscures whatever is underneath? What do you say, you perverters of modesty? Was the covering which Shem and Japheth put over their father’s naked body a TRANSPARENT covering? Or did it only cover a small portion of their father’s nakedness? When the waters of the flood rose over the highest mountains by 15 cubits, were the mountains still in view? Or when the locusts covered the land of Egypt, so that no one was able to see the earth, do you imagine a small pile of locusts on the ground?

You have seen that the word “kalupto” is even translated as “disguise” when men put it on, making them unrecognizable to others. How can that happen unless their faces are obscured? When Moses put the veil over his face, was his face still visible? Or when the ground opened up to swallow Korah and the other rebels, were they still visible after the ground closed over them?

But let us now notice that whenever this word is used in connection to a woman’s veil, it’s always in the context of modesty, because women used to cover their entire bodies in ancient times. It’s NEVER used in reference to a symbolic cap on the head. Paul was not inventing a new word or a brand new fashion style when he wrote his letter. All righteous women wore veils, and even harlots could barely get away with showing off as much of their bodies in those days as professing Christian women do today. Here you have the Scriptures speaking on the subject of the female head-covering:

Isaiah 47:1-3 – Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones and grind meal; remove (ἀποκάλυψαι) your veil (κατακάλυμμά), uncover your white hairs, make bare the leg, pass through the rivers. Your nakedness shall be uncovered, and your shame shall be seen.

Here you have a woman being humiliated by having her modest clothing removed. When her leg is exposed and her veil is removed, God Himself says “her nakedness has been uncovered.” The veil is inseparable from modesty. And notice also that God says virgin women wear veils, not only married women.

Again, virgin women are wearing veils in 3 Maccabees:

3 Maccabees 4: 5-7: For a multitude of gray-headed old men, sluggish and bent with age, was being led away, forced to march at a swift pace by the violence with which they were driven in such a shameful manner. And young women who had just entered the bridal chamber to share married life exchanged joy for wailing, their myrrh-perfumed hair sprinkled with ashes, and were carried away unveiled (ακαλυπτως), all together raising a lament instead of a wedding song, as they were torn by the harsh treatment of the heathen.

And again, Solomon’s virgin wife is veiled:

Song of Songs 4:1: Behold, you are beautiful, my love. Behold, you are beautiful. Your eyes are doves behind your veil (σιωπήσεώς). Your hair is as a flock of goats that descend from Mount Gilead.

Song of Songs: 4:3: Your lips are like scarlet thread. Your mouth is lovely. Your temples are like a piece of a pomegranate behind your veil.

Song of Songs: 4:5: Your two breasts are like two fawns that are twins of a roe, which feed among the lilies.

Does this sound like a purely symbolic doily plopped on the back of the head? But a contentious person will point out that Solomon also admires her mouth and neck, so they must be visible, implying the veil is completely different from all of the other veils we’ve read about. Only a spiritual reading will make sense of Solomon’s words, since he also admires her breasts, and no one would be so audacious as to insist she wasn’t wearing clothes. Obviously she is fully clothed, as it even later says she is wearing a particular kind of veil that covers her entire body called a theristron (θεριστρον).

The watchmen that go their rounds in the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil (θεριστρον) from me. – Song of Songs 5:7

The theristron was a bridal dress and veil combined into one garment, similarly to a burqa, which was worn over a woman’s tunic, and it is this veil that Rebecca donned when she saw Isaac in the distance.

She said to the servant, “Who is the man who is walking in the field to meet us?” The servant said, “It is my master.” So she took her veil (θεριστρον), and covered herself. – Genesis 24:65

And it’s the same one Tamar put on when she was seducing Judah, because she had been cheated out of having a husband.

She took off of her the garments of her widowhood, and covered herself with her veil (θεριστρον), and painted her face, and sat in the gate of Enaim, which is by the way to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she wasn’t given to him as a wife. And when Judas saw her, he thought her to be a harlot; for she covered (κατεκαλύψατο) her face, and he knew her not. – Genesis 38:14-15

Would anyone be so stubborn as to ignore the fact that Judas was unable to recognize her due to her head-covering? Women are wearing head coverings everywhere you go in the Scriptures. When the adulterous judges UNCOVER the head of Suzanna in the book of Daniel, it reads:

Suzanna 1:31 – Now Susanna was a woman of great refinement and beautiful in appearance. As she was veiled (κατακεκαλυμμένη), the lawless men ordered her to be unveiled (ἀποκαλυφθῆναι), so that they might feast their eyes on her beauty. Those who were with her and all who saw her were weeping.

As we can see here, it’s lawless men who want women to be unveiled, so that they may feast on the beauty of women. In a similar situation to Solomon’s bride, you have evil people taking off the veil, and good women wanting to keep it on. It was shameful that they stripped her of her veil when she meant to cover herself. Stripping off a woman’s veil is always associated with shame. And this word kalupto is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to refer to women having their head-covering removed, such as Numbers 5:18, when a woman is being shamed by her husband by being accused of adultery:

Numbers 5:18: And the priest shall cause the woman to stand before the Lord, and shall uncover (ἀποκαλύψει) the head of the woman, and shall put into her hands the sacrifice of memorial, the sacrifice of jealousy; and in the hand of the priest shall be the water of this conviction that brings the curse.

Do you see how many times in Scripture it’s testified that women wore veils? Now, let’s go through all of these examples. Was Rebekah’s veil worn for prayer, or for modesty? If it was only a symbol, why did it matter who she wore it in front of? And why did she put it on when she wasn’t even praying, if the veil is only supposed to be worn during prayer?

What about Tamar? Was Tamara’s veil worn as a symbol or as a disguise? If it was for a disguise, that means her veil covered her face. And it is the very same veil which Paul commands women to wear.

Was Suzanna’s veil removed because the elders disliked the symbol on her head or because they wanted to enjoy her beauty? If it was for her beauty, then that means the veil covered her face. Or do you think Suzanna’s “great beauty” was referring only to her hair and had nothing to do with her face?

Was Moses’ veil a symbol, or a covering over his face? 

What about Solomon’s wife, whose eyes are seen peeking out from her veil? Is that a doily on the back of her head?

What about the virgin daughter of Babylon? Is she called “naked” because a small symbolic handkerchief was removed from her scalp? Or was she called naked because her body was exposed in a shameful way; namely, by having her veil removed?

What about when Saul disguised himself? Or when king Ahab disguised himself? Or when Elijah veiled his face from the glory of God?

What about the women of 3 Maccabees? Was it a symbol? The answer is obvious. The veil has never been this ambiguous symbol as many have claimed.

Clearly, it was common practice for women to be veiled, and it was considered a great humiliation to have it removed publicly. Furthermore, there are numerous passages in the New Testament as well, which contain the Greek root kalupto, and they – like the ones in the Old Testament – clearly show that anything which has been “covered” in this way is no longer visible.

 

NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew 8:26 – Suddenly a violent storm arose on the sea, so that the boat was being covered (καλύπτεσθαι) by the waves; but He was asleep.

Matthew 10:26 – “Therefore do not be afraid of them; for there is nothing covered (κεκαλυμμένον) that will not be uncovered (ἀποκαλυφθήσεται), and hidden that will not be made known.

Luke 8:16 – “No one after lighting a lamp covers (καλύπτει) it with a container or puts it under a bed, but places it on a lampstand, so that those who come in may see the light.

Luke 23:30 – Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover (καλύψατε) us!’

Elsewhere in Revelation, it references the same event in different words.

“Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the generals and the rich and the strong, and every one, slave and free, hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;” – Revelation 6:15-16

Mk 14:65, Matthew 26:68: And some began to spit on him, and to cover (περικαλύπτειν) his face, and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy to us, Christ! Who is the one who hit you?” And the guards received him with blows.

2 Corinthians 4:3 – But even if our gospel is veiled (κεκαλυμμένον), it is veiled (κεκαλυμμένον) only to those who are perishing,

James 5:20 –  … he should know that the one who brings a sinner back from the error of his way will save that person’s soul from death and cover (καλύψει) a multitude of sins.

1 Peter 4:8 – Above all, maintain a fervent love among yourselves, for love covers (καλύπτει) a multitude of sins.

The Lord Jesus Christ Himself says that no one kalupto’s their light, but puts it on a lampstand so that it can be SEEN. Clearly, anything kalupto’d is not visible.

And just as there are many instances of this word being used to describe things that are completely covered up, there are opposite uses of  the word which refer to things being REVEALED, or “apocalypsed.”

 

UNCOVERED / REVEALED, NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew 11:25: At that time, Jesus answered, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you hid these things from the wise and understanding, and revealed (ἀπεκάλυψας) them to infants

Matthew 16:17: Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed (ἀπεκάλυψέν) this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Luke 17:30: It will be the same way in the day that the Son of Man is revealed (ἀποκαλύπτεται).

1 Corinthians 3:13: The work of each will become visible. For the day will make it plain, because it is revealed (ἀποκαλύπτεται) in fire; and the fire itself will assay what sort the work of each is.

Matthew 11:27: All things have been delivered to me by my Father. No one knows the Son, except the Father; neither does anyone know the Father, except the Son, and he to whom the Son desires to reveal (ἀποκαλύψαι) him.

This word for “uncover” also occurs numerous times in the Old Testament, as you would expect. Here are a few:

 

UNCOVERED / REVEALED, OLD TESTAMENT:

2 Samuel 6:20: Then David returned to bless his household. Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, “How glorious the king of Israel was today, who uncovered (ἀπεκαλύφθη) himself today in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovers (ἀποκαλυφθεὶς) himself!”

2 Samuel 22:16: Then the channels of the sea appeared (ἀπεκαλύφθη). The foundations of the world were laid bare by the rebuke of Yahweh, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils….

1 Maccabees 7:31: Nicanor found out that his plan was discovered (ἀπεκαλύφθη); and he went out to meet Judas in battle beside Capharsalama.

Ezekiel 22:10: In you have they uncovered (ἀπεκάλυψαν) their fathers’ nakedness; in you have they humbled her who was unclean in her impurity.

Ezekiel 23:10: These uncovered (ἀπεκάλυψαν) her nakedness; they took her sons and her daughters; and her they killed with the sword: and she became a byword among women; for they executed judgments on her.

Genesis 8:13: It happened in the six hundred first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from the earth. Noah removed the covering (ἀπεκάλυψεν) of the ship, and looked. He saw that the surface of the ground was dried.

Numbers 22:31: Then God uncovered (ἀπεκάλυψεν) the eyes of Balaam and he saw the angel of The Lord opposing in the way and the sword drawn in his hand and upon stooping down he bowed down his face.

Daniel 2:22: He reveals (ἀποκαλύπτει) the deep and secret things; he knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with him.

Sirach 27:16: He who reveals (ἀποκαλύπτων) secrets destroys trust, and will not find a close friend.

Sirach 42:19: He declares the things that are past and the things that shall be, and reveals (ἀποκαλύπτων) the traces of hidden things.

Isaiah 20:4: so the king of Assyria will lead away the captives of Egypt and the exiles of Ethiopia, young and old, naked and barefoot, and with buttocks uncovered (ἀνακεκαλυμμένους), to the shame of Egypt.

Isaiah 24:1: Behold the Lord is destroying the inhabited world and will make it desolate and will expose (ἀνακαλύψει) its face and scatter the ones dwelling in it.

Isaiah 47:3: Your shamefacedness will be discovered (ἀνακαλυφθήσεται), your reproaches will be made manifest; the just will I take from you and I will no longer hand you over to men.

Jeremiah 13:22: If you say in your heart, “Why are these things come on me?” for the greatness of your iniquity are your skirts uncovered (ἀνεκαλύφθη), and your heels suffer violence.

Jeremiah 49:10: But I have made Esau bare, I have uncovered (ἀνεκάλυψα) his secret places, and he shall not be able to hide himself: his seed is destroyed, and his brothers, and his neighbors; and he is no more.

And there are many more like these.

 

FACE OF THE EARTH:

You may have already noticed that throughout the Scriptures, a term is used, and is even used to this day, which implies a common application for the word “kalypto.” It is the phrase “covering the face of” something. For instance, covering the “face of the earth.” There are many examples of this.

Genesis 6:8: And God said, I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth

Exodus 10:15: For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened, and they ate every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left. There remained nothing green, either tree or herb of the field, through all the land of Egypt.

Isaiah 24:1: Behold the Lord is destroying the inhabited world and will make it desolate and will expose (ἀνακαλύψει) its face and scatter the ones dwelling in it.

Judith 7:18: The rest of the Assyrian army encamped in the plain, and covered the whole face of the land, and their tents and supply trains spread out in great number, and they formed a vast multitude.

Why do the Scriptures use this term “covering the face of the earth?” This would be a strange phrase to use on any other part of the body. For instance, if God covered the belly of the earth, or the arm of the earth, or the leg. But the reason why it makes sense for God to employ this terminology on a regular basis is because a certain part of the body was accustomed to being covered back then, namely the face.

 

COVERING THE FACE BECAUSE OF SHAME:

In the Old Testament, men would also cover their heads (not with a yamaka, but an entire head-covering, such as women used), but only when they were feeling deeply ashamed over something. And why should shame make a person want to hide their face, you ask? For the same reason Adam and Eve hid from God after they had sinned, every person who is ashamed wishes to conceal themselves from the sight of others. You see this whenever a person gets arrested and has cameras pointed at them, they cover their face, because it’s natural to flee the sight of the public when you’re feeling low and humiliated.

2 Samuel 15:30: David went up by the ascent of the Mount of Olives, and wept as he went up; and he had his head covered (ἐπικεκαλυμμένος), and went barefoot: and all the people who were with him covered (ἐπεκάλυψεν) every man his head, and they went up, weeping as they went up.

Jeremiah 14:3–4: [Judah mourns,] and their nobles send their lads for water: they come to the pits, and find no water; their vessels return empty; they are ashamed and disgraced, and cover their heads. Because of the ground which is cracked, for there has been no rain in the land, the plowmen are ashamed, they cover (επικαλυπτω) their heads.

Esther 6:12: And Mordecai returned to the palace, but Hamaan went home mourning, and having his head covered (κατακεκαλυμμένος).

Psalm 69:7: Because for your sake, I have borne reproach. Shame has covered (ἐκάλυψεν) my face.

Job 9:24: The earth is given into the hand of the wicked. He covers (συγκαλύπτει) the faces of its judges. If not he, then who is it?

Ezekiel 12:6: In their sight you shall bear it on your shoulder, and carry it forth in the dark; you shall cover (συγκαλύψεις) your face, so that you don’t see the land: for I have set you for a sign to the house of Israel.

Isaiah 29:22: Because of this, thus says The Lord upon the house of Jacob which He set apart out of Abraham “Jacob will no longer be ashamed and neither will the face of Israel be turned away any longer.

Jeremiah 51:51: We are ashamed, because we have heard reproach; disgrace has covered (κατεκάλυψεν) our faces: for strangers are come into the sanctuaries of Yahweh’s house.

Ezra 9:6: And I said, “My God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to you, my God; for our iniquities have increased over our head, and our guiltiness has grown up to the heavens.

Isaiah 50:6-7: I gave my back to scourges, and my cheeks to blows; and I turned not away my face from the shame of spitting. The Lord God became my helper; therefore I was not ashamed, but I set my face as a solid rock; and I know that I shall never be ashamed.

Jeremiah 2:26: Like the shamefacedness of the thief when caught, thus will the sons of Israel be put to shame, they and their kings and their rulers and their priests and their prophets.

SHAME-FACEDNESS MEANING:

This is what Paul means when he says, “If a man has long hair, it is degrading to him,” because a person only covers their head if they’re ashamed over something, and hair is given as a covering. But should women go around shamefaced all the time even if they’re not committing any sin? Yes.

In like manner, women should adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment. – 1 Timothy 2:9

This word Paul uses, shamefacedness (or Aidos, in the Greek), means to be downcast in the eyes, literally, to look downward, to blush at being seen by others. And as we just read, people in the Old Testament who felt this kind of shame would cover their faces with the very same type of head-covering Paul commands women to wear – the same women he also commands to wear “modest apparel, with shamefacedness.”

Now, it’s not that a woman ought to feel shame for a sin she hasn’t committed, but rather to put on a face of shame, a face that ACTS ashamed, so that she’s prevented from sinning, and eliminates the possibility of destroying a man through lust. The spirit of lust not only enflames the eyes that wish to look at beautiful women, but also the women who wish to be admired for their beauty, who enjoy being lusted after. Both the one who lusts and the one who wishes to be lusted after are sinning.

But the shamefaced woman casts down her eyes, knowing that her eyes are a snare to men and are often used as an invitation to lust. When told to cover herself, she doesn’t answer hatefully like the wicked Cain, who said, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” who knew full-well that he was guilty of slaying his brother. A righteous woman covers up the glory of her form, just as God conceals His glory from the Israelites in the pillar of cloud, knowing that no one can look at Him in His glory and live, just as a woman’s glory can overpower a man and work death in his soul. Rather, she ought to reserve the glory of her body for her husband alone. This is in contrast to the wicked women described in Scripture, who love to be seen by all men.

Isaiah 3:16-24: The Lord said: Because the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with outstretched necks, glancing wantonly with their eyes, mincing along as they go, tinkling with their feet, therefore the Lord will humble the chief daughters of Zion, and the Lord will expose (ἀποκαλύψει) their form in that day.

And the Lord will take away the glory of their raiment, the curls and the fringes, and the crescents, and the chains, and the makeup of their faces, and the array of glorious ornaments, and the armlets, and the bracelets, and the wreathed work, and the finger-rings, and the ornaments for the right hand, and the ear-rings, and the garments with scarlet borders, and the garments with purple grounds, and the shawls to be worn in the house, and the Spartan transparent dresses, and those made of fine linen, and the purple, and the scarlet, and the fine linen interwoven with gold and purple, and the veils (theristron | θεριστρον).

And there shall be instead of a sweet smell, dust; and instead of a girdle, you shall gird yourself with a rope; and instead of well-set hair; you shall have baldness on account of your works; and instead of a tunic with a scarlet ground, you shall gird yourself with sackcloth.

Paul said it would be shameful for a woman to be shaved bald, and God proves it here by using it as a threat toward the wicked daughters of Zion. You cannot miss the fact that God is threatening the daughters of Zion with having their bodies unveiled (or “apocalypsed”) and is also threatening to take away their beautiful theristron veils as well. The only way this could be used as a threat would be if being unveiled was shameful.

This word shamefacedness is also used in 3 Maccabees 1:

The virgins who had been enclosed in their chambers rushed out with their mothers, sprinkled their hair with dust, and filled the streets with groans and lamentations. Those women who had recently been arrayed for marriage abandoned the bridal chambers prepared for wedded union, and, neglecting proper shamefacedness, in a disorderly rush flocked together in the city. – 3 Maccabees 1:18-19

In the Proverbs, Solomon describes harlots as lacking shamefacedness:

Proverbs 7:10-20: And lo, a woman meets him, dressed as a harlot, wily of heart.

And how is she dressed as a harlot? By wearing clothing that reveals her figure, and by beautifying her face with makeup.

She is loud and wayward, her feet do not stay at home; She seizes him and kisses him, and with brazen face she says to him….

But why is her face called “brazen” or “impudent?” Because modesty is removed from it, and she openly, unashamedly flaunts the beauty which was meant to be concealed and reserved for her husband.

Proverbs 9:13: The foolish woman is loud, undisciplined, and knows no shame.

Proverbs 5:3: For the lips of a loose woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil.

Proverbs 6:25: Do not desire her beauty in your heart, and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes.

Insert video of Venus fly trap. You see how the exposed face of a woman is a trap that catches many men. But how ought a Christian woman to dress?

1 Peter 3:1-6: Your adornment must not be external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on beautiful clothes; but the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands.

The righteous women in ancient times stayed quiet and submissive to their husbands, always saying, “Yes, my lord,” whenever commanded to do anything, and Peter emphasizes the necessity of adorning oneself internally, in the hidden person of the heart. Is it any surprise that Peter, when talking about women’s dress, mentions that they should take special satisfaction in being hidden?

 

VEILING AROUND THE WORLD:

To the average American or European, the ancient custom of wives calling their husbands “lord” and keeping silent the rest of the time, being workers at home and covering their whole bodies on the rare occasion they’re seen in public, is a very foreign concept. But you’re about to find out just how prevalent the custom of veiling women was in ancient times.

Satan has successfully eradicated the true definition of modesty from almost all of Europe and the United States, but nothing is as disheartening as the fact that on the rare occasion when a woman IS found to be dressed modestly, people instantly assume she must be a Muslim, because the Muslims are one of the only groups on earth still veiling their women. And even worse, people think that since Muslims are the only ones wearing the veil, then veiling must be inherently evil; at least, according to protestants – or should I say, prostitutes. These adulterous w****mongers, who never fail to divorce their wives and marry a second and third and fourth time, who let their wives paint their faces like clowns and burden their heads with outrageous hairdos, and pay fortunes to own treasure chests full of jewelry and spend countless hours getting their nails done at salons, who go around wearing skinny jeans and yoga pants – these very men and women never miss an opportunity to make fun of modest Muslim women for wearing burqas, constantly making jokes about them looking like closed umbrellas, or ghosts, as if it was shameful to be fully-clothed, and the whole world was OWED the right to see their bodies. But here’s a much-needed newsflash: Muslims didn’t invent the veil of modesty. Not even the Christians invented it. It’s been around for thousands of years!

What’s worse is that Muslims don’t even practice it correctly, because their wives still wear makeup on their eyes, which defeats the purpose of a veil! On the one hand, they’re hiding almost every inch of their skin, but on the other, they’re decorating the tiny amount of skin that IS visible as much as possible in order to attract others’ attention! And yet people seem to think they hold a monopoly on modesty, as if they invented the concept.

Cultures all around the world have veiled their women from head to toe for the last 4000 years. There was no debate about why women were to be veiled. It was the sign of modesty and subjection. There was a universally-held belief that the virginity of every daughter needed to be guarded by the father, and the behavior of wives kept under constant supervision. This was accomplished mainly by keeping women covered up and indoors for most of their lives, rarely letting them be seen outside the house. The only women that weren’t being being veiled were pre-pubescent girls and older women who had become ugly, making their husbands relax their strictness.

In ancient China, beginning around the year 2000 BC during the Shang dynasty, which is the oldest dynasty in China, women wore a combination of the mili and the chiffon. The mili was a body-long veil which was used to conceal the body of women, a form of burnoose which was burqua-like, and was ideal for protecting women’s modesty as it covered and hid the entire body, while the chiffon was a cloth that wrapped around the face under the eyes. Both of these were worn together, and this exact veiling style was practiced by the women living in ancient Japan as well. The full-body mili then evolved into the weimao by the end of the Sui dynasty (around 700 AD), which only covered the head instead of extending down to the feet, but it too covered the face.

In India, from the earliest recorded traditions, women have been wearing the ghoonghat, a veil that covers the entire head, including the face. The oldest Sanskrit literature (written between 1500 and 1000 BC), which is considered holy in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, describes married women as wearing this kind of veil, spanning from India, to Central Asia, to East Asia and Southeast Asia. But thanks to modern regression, this veil is disappearing in India. In 2004, the India Human Development Survey found that only 55% of women in India still practice some form of ghoonghat, with many of them still covering the entire face, and others only partially covering.

“God made you a woman, so that you shall lower your gaze, do not look at men, keep your feet close, cover your head, and do not disclose what the veil conceals.” – Rig Veda Book 8 Hymn 33 Mantra 19-20, 1500–1000 BC

“O Lord! Are you not indeed enraged, in seeing me on foot in this way out through the city-gate, unveiled and come on foot in the way? O lover of your consorts! Look at all your spouses, who came out, with their veils dropped off. Why are you not getting enraged in seeing this? – Yuddha Khanda 6, Sarga 111, verses 63-64, 800–500 BC

In ancient Assyria, the law of the land (called Middle Assyrian Law) required women to wear veils over their faces, and this lawbook was based on an even older one from the Babylonian empire, which existed about 1450 BC. In a document dated from the reign of Tiglath-pileser I (who lived around 1100 BC), in article 40, we find a law that still affects women of this region today. It reads thusly:

Married women, widows, and Assyrian women must not have their heads uncovered when they go out into the street. Daughters of status must be veiled, whether by a veil, a robe, or a [mantle]; they must not have their heads uncovered…. A concubine on the street with her mistress is to be veiled. A hierodule (prostitute) who has gotten married must be veiled on the street, but a single hierodule must have her head uncovered; she may not be veiled. A harlot is not to be veiled; her head must be uncovered. Any man who sees a veiled harlot is to apprehend her, produce witnesses and bring her to the palace entrance. Although her jewelry may not be taken the one who apprehended her may take her clothing. She shall be flogged fifty times and have pitch poured on her head. – Middle Assyrian Law, article 40

Prostitutes were forbidden from veiling because it would give them much-desired anonymity. In society’s eyes they deserved to be publicly humiliated for their occupation and were thus prevented from blending in with respectable women. This particular ruler of Assyria also expanded Assyrian control into Anatolia and Syria, even to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, so this law would have been enforced in those regions as well.

This practice of secluding wives and virgin daughters indoors and covering them up when they went outdoors was referred to as Purdah by the Persians. Although purdah is commonly associated with Islam, historians agree that veiling and secluding women pre-dates Islam by hundreds if not thousands of years; these practices were commonly found among various religious groups in the Middle East, not just Christian and Jewish communities. The burqa existed in Arabia long before Islam, and the mobility of upper-class women was also restricted in Babylonia, Persian, and Byzantine Empires for centuries prior to the advent of Islam. It was the Muslims who adopted the customs of their neighbors during the expansion of the Arab Empire into modern-day Iraq in the 7th century AD. Islam merely added religious significance to already existing local practices of the times.

In the North African countries of Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Egypt, and all of Arabia, the same standards of modesty were universally upheld until recent times, having originated in that middle region of the earth called “the Middle-East,” and disappearing slowly the farther away Noah’s descendants journeyed from that starting location, as we see with those who traveled to South America and North America, those people who were so demonically influenced and utterly devoid of the divine Logos that they ran around with almost no clothing on at all. I’m referring to the Mayans, Aztecs, Native Americans, and all aborigines. I only mention these because there will certainly be someone among our listeners who protest the burqa by saying, “There were some groups on earth that didn’t wear the burqa!” but as I’ve already said, the only groups on earth who weren’t veiling their women were the shameless ones living on the outskirts of the world, who regularly went around naked, and never made any technological or social progress in their entire history.

But in the civilized world, which still bore remembrance of the ancient customs, the veil went by many different names depending on where you lived in the world – The Egyptians had the mildyeh, the Iranians had the chadar, the Turks had the yasmak, the Yemenis had the qarqush or sheshaf which was worn with a hood and mantle, there was the Lithma, the shanbar, the maghmuq, the picheh, the shamwenja, the batalu, the mili, the weimao, the ghoonghat, the paranja, the niqab, and of course, the burqa. Even though there were many different types of veils, one thing remained the same: every country was very accustomed to women veiling their faces.

In the countries of Central Asia, now known as Khazakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Afghanistan, women wore the paranja even until present times. Originally, the paranja had nothing to do with Islam, but now it goes by the name burqa because those regions have been transformed into Islamic territories.

One historical account of the paranja comes from Lord Curzon, who travelled to Bukhara (now Uzbekistan), in 1886. During his time there he never saw a woman between the ages of 10 and 50, as they were all concealed. The heavy black horsehair veils were “too bad and coarse for a sieve,” according to him, and the women walking in loosely wrapped blue gowns with the empty sleeves pinned could have been “mistaken for clothes wandering about,” and big leather boots covered their feet. Curzon noted that “Ladies of rank and good character never venture to show themselves in any public place or bazaar.” He condemned this as a kind of tyranny, an exaggerated and erroneous notion of morality found everywhere in the East.

I’m sure Lord Curzon would have been very satisfied to learn that by the early 20th century, an unbroken tradition that lasted multiple millennia was finally destroyed when the atheistic communists of the Soviet Union took over. As soon as the communists gained power, they launched a wide-ranging campaign in 1927 called Hujum throughout all of central Asia to outlaw the paranja, and held veil-burnings in public squares, all in the name of women’s rights, but really they were just destroying the authority structure of the home established by God. Many women were divorced by their husbands during this time, and there were also many women who made counter-protests against the communist authorities and refused to stop veiling. Today, the women of these regions no longer veil the face, but still cover the top and sides of their head.

Likewise, in the early 1920s, female modesty was being abandoned worldwide, with the ruler of Iran officially outlawing all burqas in 1936 as part of his effort to emulate Europe and the United States, which had long-since repudiated the veil. His edict was called Kashf-e hijab, meaning “the unveiling.”

And as the rebellious spirit of the great w**** of Babylon continues to pollute the rest of the world, we see burqas now being banned in many European countries, in Belgium, in the Netherlands, in Denmark, and Germany, and Austria, and Italy, and Spain, and Switzerland, and Norway, and Russia, and even some African countries, such as Morocco. Unsurprisingly, it only took a few decades for this idea of simply removing a woman’s head-covering to progress into women regularly walking around naked in public. This is seen as a triumph for the liberation of Islamic women in the mind’s of you professing Christians, but really, you’re only taking away something that many of these women voluntarily choose to wear. You people have no care at all for the souls of these women, or else you wouldn’t attack them for preserving the ancient Christian standard of female modesty. These Muslim women are doing YOUR job. They’re willing to endure ridicule and hatred for being more Christian than you, and what’s really shameful is that out of all the things you could criticize the satanic religion of Islam for, you target the good things it preserved from ancient Christianity.

But let us take special notice of ancient Greek veiling practices, since it is the Greek language Paul is using when he says women ought to be “kalupto’d.” Did the Greeks veil their women in ancient times, and if so, when did they cease to do it?

The ancient Greek word for veil was καλύπτρα (kalyptra), and it was derived from the same verb Paul uses, καλύπτω (kalyptō), meaning “to cover”. The veiling of all women in ancient Greece was customary. As early as 1500 BC, it’s recorded that respectable women in classical Greek society were expected to seclude themselves and wear clothing that concealed them from the eyes of strange men.

In a scene from The Odyssey, one of the very oldest books in the world recounting the myths and lore which Greece was founded upon, Homer, writing at about 700 BC, narrates a scene where Penelope goes down to meet the men who are seeking her hand in marriage. The story reads:

And now, from high above in her room and deep in thought, she caught his inspired strains … Icarius’ daughter Penelope, wary and reserved, and down the steep stair from her chamber she descended, not alone: two of her women followed close behind. That radiant woman, once she reached her suitors, drawing her glistening veil across her cheeks, paused now where a column propped the sturdy roof, with one of her loyal handmaids stationed either side. – The Odyssey, book 1

That’s right, she drew a veil “across her cheeks.” If you can believe it, in all of the Greek myths and legends, including Homer’s Iliad and the Odyssey, women are depicted as wearing veils. Even the Greek goddesses Hera and Aphrodite, and the queen of the sea nymphs, are specifically mentioned as putting on a veil before presenting themselves to other men.

An ancient Greek play called Perikeiromene (translated as The Girl with her Hair Cut Short), a comedy by Menander in 342 BC, contains a reference to the veil. In the story, a man gives advice to his friend on how to win over a certain girl to become his lover, and he says,

“She perhaps won’t give in, you understand me, offhand, at the first assault. For she comes as no mere flute-girl nor degraded courtesan.”

The other tells him:

“She’ll be shy now when we enter. That, of course, I may assume. Cover up her face – ’tis custom – but I must on entering… win her wholly to my will, turn to flattery and tell her that for her alone I live.” – Perikeiromene, Act III

As you can see from this quote, he says she will cover up her face according to custom, because women didn’t expose their faces to strangers in those days. And they also imply that the only women who didn’t cover up their faces were “flute girls,” or rather, slaves and prostitutes. This terminology is often used in ancient literature. Jesus talks about flute girls in an extremely ancient manuscript of a lost gospel dated to the 1st century, possibly the same gospel of the Hebrews quoted by multiple church fathers, in which He says,

“Woe ye blind, who see not. Thou hast washed in these running waters wherein dogs and swine have been cast night and day, and hast cleansed and wiped the outside skin which also the harlots and flute-girls anoint and wash and wipe, and wear make-up for the lust of men; but within they are full of scorpions and all wickedness.” – Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840

And there are multiple instances in these ancient Greek plays, such as Aristophanes’ play Thesmophoriazusae (written in 411 BC) where men also will don these same veils in order to disguise themselves as women, and they’ll go unrecognized as men throughout the story, further demonstrating that their faces were being covered as well, not just the tops of their heads.

In the Greek tragedy Hecubus, written by Euripides in 424 BC, Hecuba tells a man who’s come to visit her:

Polymestor, I am holden in such wretched plight that I blush to meet thine eye; for my present evil case makes me ashamed to face thee who didst see me in happier days, and I cannot look on thee with unfaltering gaze. Do not then think it ill-will on my part, Polymestor; there is another cause as well, I mean the custom which forbids women to meet men’s gaze. – Hecubus

Continuing on, another account, written by Valerius Maximus, a Roman historian living in the first century AD, tells of a Roman government official named Gaius Sulpicius Gallus divorcing his wife because she went outside without her veil on. In this account of an event which took place sometime in the late 2nd century BC, it’s specifically mentioned that it was once Roman law for women to cover their heads (and also their faces, as it’s implied).

Terrible also was the matrimonial frown of Sulpitius Gallus, who divorced his wife, because he
understood that she went abroad with her head unveiled. A rigid sentence, and yet there was some reason for it. For the law, said he, confines thee to have no other judges of thy beauty but my eyes; for these, adorn thyself; be thou only fair to these, and do thou believe their judgment. The farther sight of thee, where it was needless, must of necessity be suspicious and criminal. – Valerius Maximus,  Memorable Acts and Sayings, VI.3.10

The “farther sight” meaning, “being seen by others far away from home.” Here, a woman is being divorced for sharing her beauty with outsiders and not reserving it for her husband alone. It’s clear that women were expected to only leave their houses if there was some pressing necessity, and that they should put on a veil in such a case. It should be noted that by the first century AD, the Romans had almost completely abandoned this law and were saying this sentence was overly harsh, as we read here.

Much like America, the Romans living in the first centuries after Christ had renounced the past standards of female modesty, but still wanted to hang onto little vestiges of the authentic head covering by veiling their women only on their wedding days. Roman women wore a bright orange or red veil called a flammeum, resembling a flame on their head, similarly to the Chinese wedding veil, and the Mongolian wedding veil, and the Korean, and the Indian, and the Russian, and North African, and Macedonian, and Greek, and all of the Middle-Eastern countries. But unlike the Romans, all of these other cultures continued to veil their women all the time, not just on their wedding days.

Plutarch, a Greek philosopher and historian living in the 1st century AD, records numerous instances of veiling in ancient Greece.

When answering questions about various practices around the world, he takes special note of a custom in Chalcedon (a Greek city) where the women changed from their old veiling custom to only covering HALF of their faces because, as Plutarch tells us, at a certain time almost all of the men in Chalcedon went off to war and died in battle together, leaving very few men leftover and many widows. Some women ended up marrying what few men were available, either emancipated slaves or those who had just overtaken the city, but others decided to remain single and conducted their own business transactions in order to support themselves, which necessitated that they show their faces at least a little to the men they did business with. Over time, the married women began to copy the semi-veiling practice of their peers.

Why is it the custom for the women of Chalcedon, whenever they encounter strange men, and especially officials, to veil [only] one cheek?

The Chalcedonians were involved in a war against the Bithynians, to which they were provoked by all kinds of reasons. When Zeipoetes became king of Bithynia, the Chalcedonians, in full force and with the addition of Thracian allies, devastated the country with fire and sword. When Zeipoetes attacked them near the so-called Phalion, they fought badly through rashness and lack of discipline, and lost over eight thousand soldiers. It was only because Zeipoetes granted an armistice to please the Byzantines that they were not completely annihilated at that time. Since, then, there was a great scarcity of men throughout the city, most of the women were forced to consort with freedmen and resident aliens. But those women who preferred to have no husband at all rather than a marriage of this sort, themselves conducted whatever business they needed to transact with the judges or the officials, drawing aside one part of the veil that covered their faces. And the married women, for very shame, followed the example of these, who, they felt, were better than themselves, and also changed to a similar custom. – Plutarch, The Roman and Greek Questions, number 49

In another account, Plutarch records that the Greeks in the 8th century BC found it very strange that while the married women of Sparta were kept veiled, their virgins were allowed to run around unveiled. The account goes like this:

When someone inquired [of King Charillus] why they took their girls into public places unveiled, but their married women veiled, he said, “Because the girls have to find husbands, and the married women have to keep to those who have them!” – Apophthegmata Laconica, Sayings of the Spartans, page 395

Of course, Sparta is well-known for having some barbaric customs, so it’s no surprise that they deviated from other nations in this respect, but even they maintained the custom of at least veiling their wives. It’s clear that their veils covered up their wives completely because the king’s answer indicates the beauty of the virgins is being shown off in order to attract husbands, while the beauty of the wives is kept hidden in order to keep their marriages intact.

And again, Plutarch is asked another question about a certain Roman practice where, if a man died, his sons would go to the funeral with a covered head, while the daughters would go with a shaved head. He explains it like this:

… It is in this regard, that unto sorrow and heaviness is best beseeming that which is extraordinary and unusual: now more ordinary it is with women to go abroad with their heads veiled and covered: and likewise with men, to be discovered and bare headed. For even among the Greeks when there is befallen unto them any public calamity, the manner and custom is, that the women should cut off the hairs of their head, and the men wear them long; for that otherwise it is usual that men should pull their heads, and women keep their hair long. – Romane Questions, question 14

Another account comes from the famous Greek writer Apollonius Rhodius, living in the 3rd century BC, who wrote the famous poem Argonautica about Jason and the Argonauts. In it, he depicts Medea gazing at the much-desired Jason from behind her veil:

The maiden, looking sideways behind her shining veil (kaluptren), glanced at him with wandering eyes. Her heart smoldered with pain as he left her sight and her soul crept out of her as in a dream and fluttered in his steps. – Argonautica, book 3

And there are many references to women wearing veils throughout the story, such as in book 4:

And with bare feet she sped along the narrow paths, with her left hand holding her robe over her brow to veil her face and fair cheeks, and with her right lifting up the hem of her tunic. – Argonautica, book 4

Someone may ask how exactly a woman is capable of veiling her face with her robe, but this was actually standard procedure in many cultures. Women wore extremely long and baggy clothing to hide their form, and they would lift up the loose fabric hanging down from their shoulders and wrap it around their face as a veil (show shot). You may not find a separate cloth being used as a veil in all of these ancient cultures, but you’ll always find hooded female garments like this, with copious amounts of extra cloth to pull over their faces.

Here’s another quote from Theognis of Megara, a 6th-century Greek poet, who makes one of his female characters voice her opinion about the kind of lewd men who would heckle respectable women in the streets. She says:

“I hate a bad man, and pass by veiling myself (kalupsamene), keeping my mind as light as a little bird’s.” – Theognis of Megara, Elegies, 579-580

Another play called Lysistrata, written by Aristophanes in the 5th century BC, gives an account of a single woman’s extraordinary mission to end the Peloponnesian War with the help of other women, after the men of her city had failed to do so. In an intense scene, she tries to make the magistrate listen to her. Lysistrata says,

“Up to now, through this long war, we kept silent about all those things you men were doing. We were being modest. And you did not allow us to speak up, although we were not happy…. Why should we delay? If you’d like to hear us give some good advice, then start to listen, keep your mouths quite shut, the way we did. We’ll save you from yourselves.”

The magistrate replies,

“Me, shut up for you? A damned woman with a veil (κάλυμμα) on your face too? I’d sooner die!”

She fires back,

“If it’s the veil that’s the obstacle, here, take mine, it’s yours. Put it over your face, and then shut up!” – Aristophanes’ Lysistrata

In another play written by Euripides in the 5th century called Hippolytus, the love-sick Phaedra desperately wishes for Hippolytus to fall in love with her, but he has instead sworn himself to chastity. This sends Phaedra into a deep depression, until she suddenly decides to just throw off her veil and chase down Hippolytus, in an attempt to win his love. She says,

Phaedra: “Lift my body, raise my head! … O handmaids, lift my arms, my shapely arms. The tire on my head is too heavy for me to wear; away with it, and let my tresses o’er my shoulders fall.”

Nurse: “My child, what wild speech is this? O say not such things in public, wild whirling words of frenzy bred!”

Phaedra: “Ah me! Alas! What have I done? Whither have I strayed, my senses leaving? Mad, mad! Stricken by some demon’s curse! Woe is me! Cover my head again, nurse. Shame fills me for the words I have spoken. Hide me then. From my eyes, the tear-drops stream, and for very shame I turn them away. ‘Tis painful coming to one’s senses again….” – Euripides’ Hippolytus

Plutarch delivers another account concerning the ancient practice of secluding women apart from the sight of others in his book Moralia (again, remember that Plutarch lived in 1st century Rome, where veiling of the face had been all but eradicated):

§ xxx. It was a custom among the Egyptian ladies not to wear shoes, that they might stay at home all day and not go abroad. But most of our women will only stay at home if you strip them of their golden shoes, and bracelets, and shoe-buckles, and purple robes, and pearls.

And then in his follow-up retort, he compares modern-day Romans with a more respectable woman from ancient Greece named Theano, whose example he thinks Grecian women should go back to imitating, who at one time accidentally exposed herself and defended her modesty:

§ xxxi. Theano, in throwing on her mantle-veil, exposed her forearm. Somebody exclaimed, “A lovely forearm!” and she replied, “But not for the public.” So ought not even the speech, any more than the arm, of a chaste woman, to be common, for speech must be considered as it were the exposing of the mind, especially in the presence of strangers. For in words are seen the state of mind and character and disposition of the speaker.

§ xxxii. Phidias made a statue of Aphrodite at Elis, with one foot on a tortoise, as a symbol that women should stay at home and be silent. For the wife ought only to speak either to her husband, or by her husband, not being vexed if, like a flute-player, she speaks more decorously by another mouth-piece. – Plutarch, Moralia 

As you can see here, Plutarch says that the more ancient Greek sculptors depicted Aphrodite not as lustful and semi-nude (as you see in most Roman statues), but rather, in the opposite way, as fully-clothed, and as an example to all Greek women of total submission to their husbands by resting her foot on a turtle, because the turtle is the symbol of modesty and privacy. She carries her house with her, and spends much of her time enclosed within her shell, only occasionally peeping out from the door of her house or from her veil. To stay enclosed within this shell is what a Greek woman aspired to in the old days.

Xenophon, another 5th-century BC Greek philosopher and historian, agrees with these sentiments wholeheartedly in his book Oikonomikos:

“God made provision from the first by shaping, as it seems to me, the woman’s nature for indoor and the man’s for outdoor occupations. Man’s body and soul He furnished with a greater capacity for enduring heat and cold, wayfaring and military marches; or, to repeat, He laid upon his shoulders the outdoor works. While in creating the body of woman with less capacity for these things, God would seem to have imposed on her the indoor works; and knowing that He had implanted in the woman and imposed upon her the nurture of new-born babies, He endowed her with a larger share of affection for the new-born child than He bestowed upon man. And since He imposed on woman the guardianship of the things imported from without, God, in His wisdom, perceiving that a fearful spirit was no detriment to guardianship, endowed the woman with a larger measure of timidity than He bestowed on man. Knowing further that he to whom the outdoor works belonged would need to defend them against malign attack, He endowed the man in turn with a larger share of courage. – Xenophon’s Oikonomikos, chapter 7

This is very similar to what the church fathers say about women’s role. John Chrysostom says:

And that not only in cities, but also in each family there might be great unanimity, He honored the man with rule and superiority; the woman on the other hand He armed with desire: and the gift also of procreation of children, He committed in common to both, and withal He furnished also other things apt to conciliate love: neither entrusting all to the man, nor all to the woman; but dividing these things also severally to each; to her entrusting the house, and to him the market; to him the work of feeding, for he tills the ground; to her that of clothing, for loom and distaff are the woman’s. For it is God Himself who gave to woman-kind skill in woven work. – John Chrysostom, Homily 34 on First Corinthians

And in the Apostolic Constitutions, it says, “[Women] do less move about, and keep usually at home in the house. – Apostolic Constitutions, book 6, chapter 28

Lysias, another famous Greek orator living in the 5th century BC, records a story confirming this age-old and very commonplace practice of secluding women indoors.

I think it proper that you should hear the numerous offences that [Simon] has committed against myself. Hearing that the boy was at my house, he came there in a drunken state, broke down the doors, and entered into the area the women use. Within were my sister and my nieces who had lived such well-ordered lives that they were embarrassed even to be seen by their relatives. This man, then, carried insolence to such a level that he refused to go away until the people who appeared on the spot and those who had accompanied him, thinking it a terrible thing to intrude on young women and orphans, drove him out by force. – The Orations of Lysias

As you can see, these women had been cooped up in the house all their lives, and this by their own choice even, as it was considered a mark of respect whenever a woman valued her own chastity so highly and refused to make herself a frequent sight even of her relatives, let alone the outside world.

Let this suffice as proof that what was being practiced in all other countries until the times of the Christians had also been practiced in Greece and Rome. And, most importantly, the Greek word Paul is using for veiling was well-known and extremely common, so that there would have been no doubt as to what he meant when he said a woman should be “covered” and should adorn herself with shamefacedness. He clearly meant that she should uphold the customs of modesty and propriety that had been preserved all around the world, not just by the Jews but even by the pagans, until recent times.

 

THE VEIL IS AUTHORITY

It’s well-known

that cultures all around the world used to cover their women from head to toe, and that this was the true sign of authority that husbands exercised over their wives (namely, that they didn’t go around sharing their wives’ beauty with strangers), and yet everyone in this modern movement to restore the head-covering fights against the historical practice of covering for the sake of modesty, and rather insists that the concept of covering up females was an entirely new concept invented by Paul, and that the Corinthian Christians were the first ones to receive it in all of history!

Whenever historical data comes out proving that head coverings existed all around the world for millennia, even until the last few hundred years, these supposed “advocates” of the kalupto veil make a point to disparage the concept that veiling has been a universal custom among every culture around the world, at least those immediate cultures which were formed after the confusion at the tower of Babel, and instead argue that it’s only a “prayer veil.” They even go so far as to say Christians should NOT wear a burqa, because that would give the impression that we’re Muslims. Wearing a burqa is equal to wearing a rainbow flag, they say, which has likewise become a symbol of sin! That’s right, folks, female modesty is now sinful.

When Americans look at the head coverings of Muslim women, they see it as oppressive, as if the man is being overbearing on his wife. No one looks at the doily on the head of an Amish woman and immediately thinks, “That’s oppressive!” But when they see a woman wearing a burqa, their first thought is that the husband must exercise authority over his wife very heavy-handedly, and that he’s guilty of subjugating women. Why is that? Because THIS type of covering (the one that completely covers the woman) is the true sign of authority, not the doily.

When a woman’s head is completed hidden behind a veil, it’s a statement from the husband or father that says, “I’m not going to show my wife or daughter to you. She belongs to me. She is under my authority. She’s off-limits to everyone outside her family, and I forbid you to know what she looks like.” This is authority, and it’s understood the instant you see a man standing next to his veiled wife. That’s why it was actually against the law for prostitutes and slaves to be veiled in ancient Assyria and Greece, because these women weren’t under any man’s authority, and it would be to the detriment of society if prostitutes and slaves were allowed to mingle with respectable free women. Instead, their identities were kept exposed to the world so that their behavior could be regulated and the classes of women be separated.

 

CHURCH FATHERS ON THE VEIL:

But why rely on historical proof of the veil when we can more easily establish its definition and necessity by referring to the practice of mother church, who preserved the standard of modesty for the whole world to remember. And we will remember it, even if some would rather forget and invent their own ridiculous head-covering. Let us now listen to the voices which sound forth apostolic tradition in regard to modesty.

First we will hear from Clement of Alexandria, a presbyter who lived from 150 – 215 AD.

 

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA:

Woman and man are to go to church decently attired, with natural step, embracing silence, possessing unfeigned love, pure in body, pure in heart, fit to pray to God. Let the woman observe this, further. Let her be entirely covered, unless she happen to be at home. For that style of dress is grave, and protects from being gazed at. And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled.

They say that the wife of Æneas, through excess of propriety, did not, even in her terror at the capture of Troy, uncover herself; but, though fleeing from the conflagration, remained veiled. – Instructor of Children, book 3, chapter 11

But by no manner of means are women to be allotted to uncover and exhibit any part of their person, lest both fall, — the men by being excited to look, they by drawing on themselves the eyes of the men. – Instructor of Children, book 2, chapter 2:

For it is common [for men and women] to both to be covered, as it is to eat and drink. The necessity, then, being common, we judge that the provision ought to be similar. For as it is common to both to require things to cover them, so also their coverings ought to be similar; although such a covering ought to be assumed as is requisite for covering the eyes of women…. And if some accommodation is to be made, they may be permitted to use softer clothes, provided they put out of the way fabrics foolishly thin, and of curious texture in weaving; bidding farewell to embroidery of gold and Indian silks and elaborate Bombyces (silks)…. For these superfluous and diaphanous materials are the proof of a weak mind, covering as they do the shame of the body with a slender veil. For luxurious clothing, which cannot conceal the shape of the body, is no more a covering. For such clothing, falling close to the body, takes its form more easily, and adhering as it were to the flesh, receives its shape, and marks out the woman’s figure, so that the whole make of the body is visible to spectators, though not seeing the body itself. – Instructor of Children, book 2, chapter 11:

As, then, in the fashioning of our clothes, we must keep clear of all strangeness, so in the use of them we must beware of extravagance. For neither is it seemly for the clothes to be above the knee, as they say was the case with the Lacedæmonian virgins; nor is it becoming for any part of a woman to be exposed. Though you may with great propriety use the language addressed to him who said, Your arm is beautiful; yes, but it is not for the public gaze. Your thighs are beautiful; but, was the reply, for my husband alone. And your face is comely. Yes; but only for him who has married me. But I do not wish chaste women to afford cause for such praises to those who, by praises, hunt after grounds of censure; and not only because it is prohibited to expose the ankle, but because it has also been enjoined that the head should be veiled and the face covered; for it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men. Nor is it seemly for a woman to wish to make herself conspicuous by using a purple veil. – Instructor of Children, book 2, chapter 11:

The covering ought, in my judgment, to show that which is covered to be better than itself, as the image is superior to the temple, the soul to the body, and the body to the clothes. But now, quite the contrary, the body of these ladies, if sold, would never fetch a thousand Attic drachms. Buying, as they do, a single dress at the price of ten thousand talents, they prove themselves to be of less use and less value than cloth. Why in the world do you seek after what is rare and costly, in preference to what is at hand and cheap? It is because you know not what is really beautiful, what is really good, and seek with eagerness shows instead of realities from fools who, like people out of their wits, imagine black to be white. – Instructor of Children, book 2, chapter 11:

If, then, He takes away anxious care for clothes and food, and superfluities in general, as unnecessary; what are we to imagine ought to be said of love of ornament, and dyeing of wool, and variety of colors, and fastidiousness about gems, and exquisite working of gold, and still more, of artificial hair and wreathed curls; and furthermore, of staining the eyes, and plucking out hairs, and painting with rouge and white lead, and dyeing of the hair, and the wicked arts that are employed in such deceptions? – Instructor of Children, book 2, chapter 11

Women fond of display act in the same manner with regard to shoes, showing also in this matter great luxuriousness. Base, in truth, are those sandals on which golden ornaments are fastened…. Farewell, therefore, must be bidden to gold-plated and jewelled mischievous devices of sandals, and Attic and Sicyonian half-boots, and Persian and Tyrrhenian buskins…. For the use of shoes is partly for covering, partly for defense in case of stumbling against objects, and for saving the sole of the foot from the roughness of hilly paths…. Further, they ought for the most part to wear shoes; for it is not suitable for the foot to be shown naked: besides, woman is a tender thing, easily hurt. – Instructor of Children, book 2, chapter 12:

Next, we will hear from the presbyter Tertullian, who lived from 155  – 220 AD.

 

TERTULLIAN:

Among the Jews, so usual is it for their women to have the head veiled, that they may thereby be recognised. – De Corona, The Chaplet, chapter 4

What Tertullian means here is that the way you would tell one Jewish woman apart from another was not by looking at their faces, since their faces weren’t visible, but rather by looking at their veils, and memorizing which one belonged to whom. He’s saying the unique features of each woman’s veil was the only way to recognize who was who.

Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one prevailing all over the world, engraved on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect of the woman’s veil he says, “Does not even Nature teach you?” – as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. – De Corona, The Chaplet, chapter 6

Christ is the Head of the Christian man – (for his head) is as free as even Christ is, under no obligation to wear a covering, not to say a crown. But even the head which is bound to have the veil, I mean woman’s, as already taken possession of by this very thing, is not open also to a crown. She has the burden of her own humility to bear. – De Corona, The Chaplet, chapter 14

But that point which is promiscuously observed throughout the churches, whether virgins ought to be veiled or no, must be treated of. For they who allow to virgins immunity from head-covering, appear to rest on this; that the apostle has not defined “virgins” by name, but “women,” as “to be veiled;” – On Prayer, chapter 21

“Every woman,” said he, “praying and prophesying with head uncovered, dishonors her own head.” What is “every woman”, but woman of every age, of every rank, of every condition? As, then, in the masculine sex, under the name of “man” even the “youth” is forbidden to be veiled; so, too, in the feminine, under the name of “woman,” even the “virgin” is bidden to be veiled… For indeed it is “on account of the angels” that he said women must be veiled, because on account of “the daughters of men” angels revolted from God. Who then, would contend that “women” alone – that is, such as were already wedded and had lost their virginity – were the objects of angelic concupiscence, unless “virgins” are incapable of excelling in beauty and finding lovers? – On Prayer, chapter 22

Let her, then, maintain the character wholly, and perform the whole function of a “virgin:” what she conceals for the sake of God, let her cover quite over…. Why do you denude before God what you cover before men? Will you be more modest in public than in the church? Be veiled, virgin, if virgin you are; for you ought to blush. If you are a virgin, shrink from (the gaze of) many eyes. Let no one wonder at your face; let no one perceive your falsehood. – On Prayer, chapter 22

Nay, but true and absolute and pure virginity fears nothing more than itself. Even female eyes it shrinks from encountering. Other eyes itself has. It betakes itself for refuge to the veil of the head as to a helmet, as to a shield, to protect its glory against the blows of temptations, against the dam of scandals, against suspicions and whispers and emulation; (against) envy also itself.- On the Apparel of Women, chapter 15

The more holy virgin, accordingly, will fear, even under the name of fascination, on the one hand the adversary, on the other God, the envious disposition of the former, the censorial light of the latter; and will joy in being known to herself alone and to God. But even if she has been recognized by any other, she is wise to have blocked up the pathway against temptations. For who will have the audacity to intrude with his eyes upon a shrouded face? A face without feeling? A face, so to say, morose? Any evil cogitation whatsoever will be broken by the very severity. – On the Apparel of Women, chapter 15

Nay, rather banish quite away from your “free” head all this slavery of ornamentation. In vain do you labor to seem adorned: in vain do you call in the aid of all the most skillful manufacturers of false hair. God bids you “be veiled.” I believe (He does so) for fear the heads of some should be seen! – On the Apparel of Women, chapter 7

So perilous a face, then, ought to be hidden, which has cast stumbling-stones even so far as heaven: that, when standing in the presence of God, at whose bar it stands accused of the driving of the angels from their (native) confines, it may blush before the other angels as well; and may repress that former evil liberty of its head —(a liberty) now to be exhibited not even before human eyes. – On the Apparel of Women, chapter 7

If, moreover, the apostle further adds the prejudgment of nature, that redundancy of locks is an honour to a woman, because hair serves for a covering, of course it is most of all to a virgin that this is a distinction; for their very adornment properly consists in this, that, by being massed together upon the crown, it wholly covers the very citadel of the head with an encirclement of hair. – On the Apparel of Women, chapter 7

It behooves our virgins to be veiled from the time that they have passed the turning-point of their age: that this observance is exacted by truth, on which no one can impose prescription – no space of times, no influence of persons, no privilege of regions. – On The Veiling of Virgins, chapter 1

Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of Churches keep their virgins covered. There are places, too, beneath this (African) sky, where this practice obtains; lest any ascribe the custom to Greek or barbarian Gentilehood. But I have proposed (as models) those Churches which were founded by apostles or apostolic men…. Those Churches therefore, as well (as others), have the self-same authority of custom (to appeal to)… let me say it once for all, we are one Church. Thus, whatever belongs to our brethren is ours: only, the body divides us. Still, here (as generally happens in all cases of various practice, of doubt, and of uncertainty), examination ought to have been made to see which of two so diverse customs were the more compatible with the discipline of God. And, of course, that ought to have been chosen which keeps virgins veiled, as being known to God alone…. For that custom which belies virgins while it exhibits them, would never have been approved by any except by some men who must have been similar in character to the virgins themselves. Such eyes will wish that a virgin be seen as has the virgin who shall wish to be seen. The same kinds of eyes reciprocally crave after each other. Seeing and being seen belong to the self-same lust. To blush if he see a virgin is as much a mark of a chaste man, as of a chaste virgin if seen by a man. – On The Veiling of Virgins, chapter 2

The virgins of men go about, in opposition to the virgins of God, with front quite bare, excited to a rash audacity…. We are scandalized, they say, because others walk otherwise (than we do); and they prefer being scandalized to being provoked (to modesty). A scandal, if I mistake not, is an example not of a good thing, but of a bad, tending to sinful edification. Good things scandalize none but an evil mind. If modesty, if bashfulness, if contempt of glory, anxious to please God alone, are good things, let women who are scandalized by such good learn to acknowledge their own evil. – On The Veiling of Virgins, chapter 2

“If  any,” he says, “is contentious, we have not such a custom, nor (has) the Church of God.”… So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve. – On The Veiling of Virgins, chapter 8

But even if it is “on account of the angels” that she is to be veiled, doubtless the age from which the law of the veil will come into operation will be that from which “the daughters of men” were able to invite concupiscence of their persons, and to experience marriage. – On The Veiling of Virgins, chapter 11

If on account of men they adopt a false garb, let them carry out that garb fully even for that end; and as they veil their head in presence of heathens, let them at all events in the church conceal their virginity, which they do veil outside the church. They fear strangers: let them stand in awe of the brethren too; or else let them have the consistent hardihood to appear as virgins in the streets as well, as they have the hardihood to do in the churches…. To what purpose, then, do they thrust their glory out of sight abroad, but expose it in the church? I demand a reason. Is it to please the brethren, or God Himself? – On The Veiling of Virgins, chapter 13

I pray you, be you mother, or sister, or virgin-daughter — let me address you according to the names proper to your years — veil your head: if a mother, for your sons’ sakes; if a sister, for your brethren’s sakes; if a daughter for your fathers’ sakes. All ages are perilled in your person. Put on the panoply of modesty; surround yourself with the stockade of bashfulness; rear a rampart for your sex, which must neither allow your own eyes egress nor ingress to other people’s. Wear the full garb of woman, to preserve the standing of virgin.

But we admonish you, too, women of the second (degree of) modesty, who have fallen into wedlock, not to outgrow so far the discipline of the veil, not even in a moment of an hour, as, because you cannot refuse it, to take some other means to nullify it, by going neither covered nor bare. For some, with their turbans and woollen bands, do not veil their head, but bind it up; protected, indeed, in front, but, where the head properly lies, bare. Others are to a certain extent covered over the region of the brain with linen coifs of small dimensions — I suppose for fear of pressing the head — and not reaching quite to the ears. If they are so weak in their hearing as not to be able to hear through a covering, I pity them. Let them know that the whole head constitutes the woman. Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled.

For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which power ought to be had on the head: the veil is their yoke. Arabia’s heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face.

To us the Lord has, even by revelations, measured the space for the veil to extend over. For a certain sister of ours was thus addressed by an angel, beating her neck, as if in applause: “Elegant neck, and deservedly bare! It is well for you to unveil yourself from the head right down to the loins, lest withal this freedom of your neck profit you not!” And, of course, what you have said to one you have said to all. But how severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve, who, amid (the recital of) the Psalms, and at any mention of (the name of) God, continue uncovered; (who) even when about to spend time in prayer itself, with the utmost readiness place a fringe, or a tuft, or any thread whatever, on the crown of their heads, and suppose themselves to be covered? – On The Veiling of Virgins, chapter 17

“Of so small extent do they falsely imagine their head to be! Others, who think the palm of their hand plainly greater than any fringe or thread, misuse their head no less; like a certain (creature), more beast than bird, albeit winged, with small head, long legs, and moreover of erect carriage. She, they say, when she has to hide, thrusts away into a thicket her head alone — plainly the whole of it, (though)— leaving all the rest of herself exposed. Thus, while she is secure in head, (but) bare in her larger parts, she is taken wholly, head and all. Such will be their plight withal, covered as they are less than is useful. – Chapter 17, On The Veiling of Virgins

As you can see, Tertullian is concerned mainly with the modesty of the entire female body, not just the head, because even if her head is totally covered, if the rest is uncovered, she is “taken wholly, head and all.”

Now let us hear what kind of veil Origen knew of (who lived from 185 – 253), whether it was a doily or an entire covering. He has many quotes about veils, but none are as explicit as his commentary on the Song of Songs, in which he describes the kalupto veil of Solomon’s wife.

 

ORIGEN:

On account of the veil, if the Old Testament is read, he who hears will not understand. Also on account of the veil, the Gospel is hidden to those who are lost. Hence we say about the veil that shame is the veil. For insofar as we have the works of shame, it is clear that we possess the veil, according to the forty-third Psalm: “And the shame of my face veiled me.” I have set forth that he who does not have the works of shame does not have a veil, which was just what Paul says: “But we all with an unveiled face behold the glory of the Lord.” Thus Paul has an unveiled face. For he does not have the works of shame. He who is not like Paul has a veiled face. – Homily 5 on the Psalms, chapter 8

We have often said that the opposing powers love the beauty of the human soul and, when a human soul receives the seed of her lovers, in some way she commits fornication with them. But because even in the common life there are certain prostitutes who commit fornication with shame, desiring to be unnoticed, but others who not only do not veil their transgressions with shame but prostitute themselves with all shamelessness, therefore for this sinful Jerusalem he has taken the example of a soul of a prostitute. And he says that in her fornication she has become like a shameless prostitute. Often such things are committed even by us. For those who have not completely withdrawn from religion but are conquered by sin and want to remain unnoticed in their sinning are acting like a blushing prostitute. But those who are completely turned away from religion to such an extent that they don’t care about the bishop, the priests, the deacons, or the brethren, but sin with all shamelessness, are like the prostitute who prostitutes herself with effrontery. – Commentary on Ezekiel, Homily 8, chapter 3

Tell me, you whom my soul loves, where you tend your flock, where you cause them to rest at noon, lest I become as one that is veiled by the flocks of your companions. – Song of Songs 1:7

The Bride asks her Bridegroom to show her the place of His private retreat and rest, because, being impatient for love, she longs to go to him, even through the noonday heat – that is, at the particular time when the light is brighter and the splendor of the day perfect and pure – so that she may be near Him, as He feeds or refreshes His sheep, And she earnestly desires to learn the way by which she ought to go to Him, lest perchance, if she have not been taught the windings of this way, she should come upon the companions’ flocks and resemble one of those who come veiled to His companions; and, having no care for modesty, she should fear not to run hither and thither and to be seen of many. ‘But I,’ she says, ‘who would be seen of none save Thee alone, desire to know by what road I may come to Thee, that it may be a secret, that none may come between us, and that no vagrant, strange onlooker may fall in with us.’ – Homilies on Song of Songs, Book 2, chapter 4 

After this, speaking as though the Bride were veiled and covered for the sake of reverence, the Bridegroom asks her, when she comes to that place which He has just specified as being more secluded, to lay aside her veil and show her face to Him. – Song of Songs, Book 3, chapter 15

She walks thus veiled and covered, however, because she ought to have a power over her head, because of the angels. But when she has reached the outwork place, that is, the state of the age to come, there He says to her: ‘show me thy face, and let me hear thy voice; for thy voice is sweet.’ – Song of Songs, Book 3, chapter 15

Who among us, do you think, is worthy to attain the midday, and to see where the Bridegroom feeds and where He lies at noon? ‘Tell me, Thou whom my soul has loved, where Thou feedest, where Thou liest in the midday.’ For, unless Thou tell me, I shall begin to be a vagrant, driven to and fro; while I am looking for Thee, I shall begin to run after other people’s flocks and, because these other people make me feel ashamed, I shall begin to cover my face and my mouth. I am the beautiful Bride in sooth, and I show not my naked face to any save Thee only, whom I kissed tenderly but now. Tell me, Thou whom my soul has loved, where Thou feedest, where Thou liest in the midday, lest I have to go veiled beside the flocks of thy companions.’ That I suffer not these things – that I may need not to go veiled nor hide my face; that, mixing with others, I run not the risk of beginning to love also them whom I know not. Tell me, therefore, where I may seek and find Thee in the midday, ‘lest I have to go veiled beside the flocks of Thy companions.’ – Song of Songs, Homily 1, chapter 8

Origen explains here that Christ’s bride is requesting that her groom tell her exactly which path to take to arrive at his pasture so that she doesn’t end up passing by other shepherds and showing herself to them. She wants to come and be romantic with her betrothed alone, and not tempt anyone else along the way, nor be tempted herself. She would prefer to know exactly where to go so that she doesn’t have to worry about hiding her face along the way. Does it make sense yet? Does this sound like a doily? Notice also that she doesn’t mind removing her veil and showing her face to her husband, but she wouldn’t ever go to strangers bare-faced.

And now we’ll hear from Hippolytus, a presbyter in Rome, who lived from 170 – 235.

 

HIPPOLYTUS:

When the teacher finishes his instruction, the catechumens shall pray by themselves, apart from the believers.  And [all] women, whether believers or catechumens, shall stand for their prayers by themselves in a separate part of the church.  And when [the catechumens] finish their prayers, they must not give the kiss of peace, for their kiss is not yet pure.  Only believers shall salute one another, but men with men and women with women; a man shall not salute a woman. And let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth, not with a veil of thin linen, for this is not a true covering. – Apostolic Tradition, chapter 18

And now Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who lived from 210 – 258, will echo the same traditions.

 

CYPRIAN:

The characteristics of ornaments, and of garments, and the allurements of beauty, are not fitting for any but prostitutes and immodest women; and the dress of none is more precious than of those whose modesty is lowly. Thus in the Holy Scriptures, by which the Lord wished us to be both instructed and admonished, the harlot city is described more beautifully arrayed and adorned, and with her ornaments; and the rather on account of those very ornaments about to perish. And there came, it is said, one of the seven angels, which had the seven phials, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will show you the judgment of the great w****, that sits upon many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication. And he carried me away in spirit; and I saw a woman sit upon a beast, and that woman was arrayed in a purple and scarlet mantle, and was adorned with gold, and precious stones, and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of curses, and filthiness, and fornication of the whole earth. Let chaste and modest virgins avoid the dress of the unchaste, the manners of the immodest, the ensigns of brothels, the ornaments of harlots. – Treatise 2, chapter 12

For God neither made the sheep scarlet or purple, nor taught the juices of herbs and shell-fish to dye and colour wool, nor arranged necklaces with stones set in gold, and with pearls distributed in a woven series or numerous cluster, wherewith you would hide the neck which He made; that what God formed in man may be covered, and that may be seen upon it which the devil has invented in addition. Has God willed that wounds should be made in the ears, wherewith infancy, as yet innocent, and unconscious of worldly evil, may be put to pain, that subsequently from the scars and holes of the ears precious beads may hang, heavy, if not by their weight, still by the amount of their cost? – Treatise 2, chapter 14-15

All which things sinning and apostate angels put forth by their arts, when, lowered to the contagious of earth, they forsook their heavenly vigour. They taught them also to paint the eyes with blackness drawn round them in a circle, and to stain the cheeks with a deceitful red, and to change the hair with false colours, and to drive out all truth, both of face and head, by the assault of their own corruption. And indeed in that very matter, for the sake of the fear which faith suggests to me, for the sake of the love which brotherhood requires, I think that not virgins only and widows, but married women also, and all of the sex alike, should be admonished, that the work of God and His fashioning and formation ought in no manner to be adulterated, either with the application of yellow colour, or with black dust or rouge, or with any kind of medicament which can corrupt the native lineaments. – Treatise 2, chapter 14-15

God says, “Let us make man in our image and likeness; and does any one dare to alter and to change what God has made? They are laying hands on God when they try to re-form that which He formed, and to transfigure it, not knowing that everything which comes into being is God’s work, everything that is changed is the devil’s. If any artist, in painting, were to delineate in envious colouring the countenance and likeness and bodily appearance of any one; and the likeness being now painted and completed, another person were to lay hands on it, as if, when it was already formed and already painted, he, being more skilled, could amend it, a serious wrong and a just cause of indignation would seem natural to the former artist. – Treatise 2, chapter 14-15

But are sincerity and truth preserved, when what is sincere is polluted by adulterous colours, and what is true is changed into a lie by the deceitful dyes of medicaments? Your Lord says, “Thou canst not make one hair white or black;” and you, in order to overcome the word of your Lord, will be more mighty than He, and stain your hair with a daring endeavour and with profane contempt. With evil presage of the future, you make a beginning to yourself already of flame-coloured hair; and sin (oh, wickedness!) with your head. – Treatise 2, chapter 16

Are you not afraid, I entreat you, being such as you are, that when the day of resurrection comes, your Maker may not recognize you again, and may turn you away when you come to His rewards and promises, and may exclude you, rebuking you with the vigour of a Censor and Judge, and say: “This is not my work, nor is this our image. You have polluted your skin with a false medicament, you have changed your hair with an adulterous colour, your face is violently taken possession of by a lie, your figure is corrupted, your countenance is another’s. You cannot see God, since your eyes are not those which God made, but those which the devil has spoiled. You have followed him, you have imitated the red and painted eyes of the serpent. As you are adorned in the fashion of your enemy, with him also you shall burn by and by.” – Treatise 2, chapter 17

Paul proclaims in a loud and lofty voice, “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” And yet a virgin in the Church glories concerning her fleshly appearance and the beauty of her body! Paul adds, and says, “For they that are Christ’s have crucified their flesh, with its faults and lusts.” And she who professes to have renounced the lusts and vices of the flesh, is found in the midst of those very things which she has renounced! Virgin, you are taken, you are exposed, you boast one thing and do another. You sprinkle yourself with the stains of carnal concupiscence, although you are a candidate of purity and modesty. – Treatise 2, chapter 6

You call yourself wealthy and rich; but Paul meets your riches, and with his own voice prescribes for the moderating of your dress and ornament within a just limit. “Let women,” said he, “adorn themselves with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with broidered hair, nor gold, nor pearls, nor costly array, but as becomes women professing chastity, with a good conversation.” Also Peter consents to these same precepts, and says, “Let there be in the woman not the outward adorning of array, or gold, or apparel, but the adorning of the heart.” …For the rest, if you dress your hair sumptuously, and walk so as to draw attention in public, and attract the eyes of youth upon you, and draw the sighs of young men after you, nourish the lust of concupiscence, and inflame the fuel of sighs, so that, although you yourself perish not, yet you cause others to perish, and offer yourself, as it were, a sword or poison to the spectators; you cannot be excused on the pretense that you are chaste and modest in mind. Your shameful dress and immodest ornament accuse you; nor can you be counted now among Christ’s maidens and virgins, since you live in such a manner as to make yourselves objects of desire. – Treatise 2, chapter 9

And now we’ll hear from Commodianus, who wrote around 250 AD, who speaks similarly against all of the vain women of this age.

 

Commodianus:

You wish, O Christian woman, that the matrons should be as the ladies of the world. You surround yourself with gold, or with the modest silken garment. You give the terror of the law from your ears to the wind. You affect vanity with all the pomp of the devil. You are adorned at the looking-glass with your curled hair turned back from your brow. And moreover, with evil purposes, you put on false medicaments, on your pure eyes the stibium, with painted beauty, or you dye your hair that it may be always black. God is the overlooker, who dives into each heart. But these things are not necessary for modest women. Pierce your breast with chaste and modest feeling. The law of God bears witness that such laws fail from the heart which believes; to a wife approved of her husband, let it suffice that she is so, not by her dress, but by her good disposition. To put on clothes which the cold and the heat or too much sun demands, only that you may be approved modest, and show forth the gifts of your capacity among the people of God. You who were formerly most illustrious, give to yourself the guise of one who is contemptible. She who lay without life, was raised by the prayers of the widows. She deserved this, that she should be raised from death, not by her costly dress, but by her gifts. O good matrons, flee from the adornment of vanity; such attire is fitting for women who haunt the brothels. Overcome the evil one, O modest women of Christ. Show forth all your wealth in giving. – Writings, Chapter 59

Hear my voice, you who wish to remain a Christian woman, in what way the blessed Paul commands you to be adorned. Isaiah, moreover, the teacher and author that spoke from heaven, for he detests those who follow the wickedness of the world, says: “The daughters of Zion that are lifted up shall be brought low.” It is not right in God that a faithful Christian woman should be adorned. Do you seek to go forth after the fashion of the Gentiles, O you who are consecrated to God? God’s heralds, crying aloud in the law, condemn such to be unrighteous women, who in such wise adorn themselves. You stain your hair; you paint the opening of your eyes with black; you lift up your pretty hair one by one on your painted brow; you anoint your cheeks with some sort of ruddy color laid on; and, moreover, earrings hang down with very heavy weight. You bury your neck with necklaces; with gems and gold you bind hands worthy of God with an evil presage. Why should I tell of your dresses, or of the whole pomp of the devil? You are rejecting the law when you wish to please the world. You dance in your houses; instead of psalms, you sing love songs. You, although you may be chaste, do not prove yourself so by following evil things. Christ therefore makes you, such as you are, equal with the Gentiles. Be pleasing to the hymned chorus, and to an appeased Christ with ardent love fervently offer your savour to Christ. – Writings, Chapter 60

And now we’ll hear from an ancient tradition called The Ordinances of the Apostles, which expands upon the didache, written around 230 AD.

 

ORDINANCES OF THE APOSTLES (Didascalia Apostolorum):

You have heard, then, how great praise a chaste woman and one that loves her husband receives of the Lord God, one that is found faithful and is minded to please God. Thou therefore, O woman, shalt not adorn thyself that thou mayest please other men; and thou shalt not be plaited with the tresses of harlotry, nor put on the dress of harlotry, nor be shod with shoes so that thou resemble them that are such; lest thou bring upon thee those who are ensnared by these things. And if thou sin not thyself in this work of uncleanness, yet in this thou wilt have sinned, that thou hast constrained and caused that (man) to desire thee. But if thou also sin, thou hast destroyed thy life from God, and art become guilty also of the soul of that (man). – Chapter 3

Thou therefore that art a Christian, do not imitate such women; but if thou wouldst be a faithful woman, please thy husband only. And when thou walkest in the street, cover thy head with thy robe, that by reason of thy veil thy great beauty may be hidden. And adorn not thy natural face; but walk with downcast looks, being veiled. – Chapter 3

For it behooves women by a veil of modesty and humility to shew (their) fear of God, for the conversion and the increase of faith of them that are without, (both) of men and women. – Chapter 3

And now we’ll hear from the Apostolic Constitutions, a similar list of ancient traditions compiled sometime in the 300’s.

 

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS:

You have learned what great commendations a prudent and loving wife receives from the Lord God. If you desire to be one of the faithful, and to please the Lord, O wife, do not superadd ornaments to your beauty, in order to please other men; neither affect to wear fine broidering, garments, or shoes, to entice those who are allured by such things. For although you do not do these wicked things with design of sinning yourself, but only for the sake of ornament and beauty, yet will you not so escape future punishment, as having compelled another to look so hard at you as to lust after you, and as not having taken care both to avoid sin yourself, and the affording scandal to others. – Book 1, section 3

You, therefore, who are Christian women, do not imitate such as these. But thou who designest to be faithful to thine own husband, take care to please him alone. And when thou art in the streets, cover thy head; for by such a covering thou wilt avoid being viewed of idle persons. Do not paint thy face, which is God’s workmanship; for there is no part of thee which wants ornament, inasmuch as all things which God has made are very good. But the lascivious additional adorning of what is already good is an affront to the bounty of the Creator. Look downward when thou walkest abroad, veiling thyself as becomes women. – Book 1, section 3

Avoid also that disorderly practice of bathing in the same place with men; for many are the nets of the evil one. And let not a Christian woman bathe with an hermaphrodite; for if she is to veil her face, and conceal it with modesty from strange men, how can she bear to enter naked into the bath together with men? But if the bath be appropriated to women, let her bathe orderly, modestly, and moderately. But let her not bathe without occasion, nor much, nor often, nor in the middle of the day, nor, if possible, every day; and let the tenth hour of the day be the set time for such seasonable bathing. For it is convenient that you, who are a Christian woman, should ever constantly avoid a curiosity which has many eyes. – Book 1, section 3

And now some excerpts from John Chrysostom, who lived from 347 – 407, the first post-Nicene quotation in this list, who describes the same continued veiling practice in Constantinople.

 

JOHN CHRYSOSTOM:

Homily 8 on First Timothy:

“I will therefore that men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becomes women professing godliness) with good works.” – 1 Timothy 2:8-10

Paul however requires something more of women, that they adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broidered hair or gold or pearls or costly array; But (which becomes women professing godliness) with good works. But what is this modest apparel? Such attire as covers them completely, and decently, not with superfluous ornaments, for the one is becoming, the other is not.

What? Do you approach God to pray, with broidered hair and ornaments of gold? Have you come to a dance? To a marriage? To a gay procession? There such a broidery, such costly garments, had been seasonable, here not one of them is wanted. You have come to pray, to supplicate for pardon of your sins, to plead for your offenses, beseeching the Lord, and hoping to render Him propitious to you. Why do you adorn yourself? This is not the dress of a suppliant. How can you groan? How can you weep? How pray with fervency, when thus attired? Should thou weep, your tears will be the ridicule of the beholders. She that weeps ought not to be wearing gold. It were but acting, and hypocrisy. For is it not acting to pour forth tears from a soul so overgrown with extravagance and ambition? Away with such hypocrisy! God is not mocked! This is the attire of actors and dancers, that live upon the stage. Nothing of this sort becomes a modest woman, who should be adorned with shamefacedness and sobriety.

What can I do, you say, if another suspects me? But you give the occasion by your dress, your looks, your gestures. It is for this reason that Paul discourses much of dress and much of modesty. And if he would remove those things which are only the indications of wealth, as gold, and pearls, and costly array; how much more those things which imply studied ornament, as painting, coloring the eyes, a mincing gait, the affected voice, a languishing and wanton look; the exquisite care in putting on the cloak and bodice, the nicely wrought girdle, and the closely-fitted shoes? For he glances at all these things, in speaking of modest apparel and shamefacedness. For such things are shameless and indecent.

You have Christ for your Bridegroom, O virgin, why do you seek to attract human lovers? He will judge you as an adulteress. Why do you not wear the ornament that is pleasing to Him; modesty, chastity, orderliness, and sober apparel? This is meretricious, and disgraceful. We can no longer distinguish harlots and virgins, to such indecency have they advanced.

Homily 26 on First Corinthians:

And discoursing concerning the idol-sacrifices, he said not that one ought to abstain from things forbidden only, but also from things permitted when offense is given: and not only not to hurt the brethren, but not even Greeks, nor Jews. Thus, give no occasion of stumbling, says he, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the Church of God. 1 Corinthians 10:32

4. But we must also orderly go over the whole passage. For perhaps some one might here have doubt also, questioning with himself, what sort of a crime it was for the woman to be uncovered, or the man covered? What sort of crime it is, learn now from hence.

But I would have ye know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of every woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Symbols many and diverse have been given both to man and woman; to him of rule, to her of subjection: and among them this also, that she should be covered, while he has his head bare. If now these be symbols you see that both err when they disturb the proper order, and transgress the disposition of God, and their own proper limits, both the man falling into the woman’s inferiority, and the woman rising up against the man by her outward habiliments.

For if exchange of garments be not lawful, so that neither she should be clad with a cloak, nor he with a mantle or a veil: (for the woman, says He, shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garments Deuteronomy 22:5), much more is it unseemly for these things to be interchanged. For the former indeed were ordained by men, even although God afterwards ratified them: but this by nature, I mean the being covered or uncovered. But when I say Nature, I mean God. For He it is Who created Nature. When therefore you overturn these boundaries, see how great injuries ensue.

And tell me not this, that the error is but small. For first, it is great even of itself: being as it is disobedience. Next, though it were small, it became great because of the greatness of the things whereof it is a sign. However, that it is a great matter, is evident from its ministering so effectually to good order among mankind, the governor and the governed being regularly kept in their several places by it.

So that he who transgresses disturbs all things, and betrays the gifts of God, and casts to the ground the honor bestowed on him from above; not however the man only, but also the woman. For to her also it is the greatest of honors to preserve her own rank; as indeed of disgraces, the behavior of a rebel.

And not even with this only was he content, but added again, saying, “The woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels.” He signifies that not at the time of prayer only but also continually, she ought to be covered.

But if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.

Thus, in the beginning he simply requires that the head be not bare: but as he proceeds he intimates both the continuance of the rule, saying, for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven, and the keeping of it with all care and diligence. For he said not merely covered, but covered over, meaning that she be carefully wrapped up on every side. And by reducing it to an absurdity, he appeals to their shame, saying by way of severe reprimand, but if she be not covered, let her also be shorn. As if he had said, If you cast away the covering appointed by the law of God, cast away likewise that appointed by nature.

But if any say, And how is it one, if this woman have the covering of nature, but the other who is shaven have not even this? We answer, that as far as her will goes, she threw that off likewise by having the head bare. And if it be not bare of tresses, that is nature’s doing, not her own. So that as she who is shaven has her head bare, so this woman in like manner. For this cause He left it to nature to provide her with a covering, that even of it she might learn this lesson and veil herself.

It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience.

“Judge ye in yourselves: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?” Again he places them as judges of the things said, which also he did respecting the idol-sacrifices. For as there he says, judge ye what I say (1 Corinthians 10:15), so here, judge in yourselves: and he hints something more awful here. For he says that the affront here passes on unto God: although thus indeed he does not express himself, but in something of a milder and more enigmatical form of speech: is it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?

1 Corinthians 11:14
“Does not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a dishonor unto him?”

1 Corinthians 11:15
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering.”

His constant practice of stating commonly received reasons he adopts also in this place, betaking himself to the common custom, and greatly abashing those who waited to be taught these things from him, which even from men’s ordinary practice they might have learned. For such things are not unknown even to Barbarians: and see how he everywhere deals in piercing expressions: “every man praying having his head covered dishonors his head;” and again, “but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled:” and here again, “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.”

“And if it be given her for a covering,” say you, “wherefore need she add another covering?” That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that you ought to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, your own part also, that you may not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness , to buffet not only with us, but with nature also. This is why God accusing the Jews said, “You have slain your sons and your daughters: this is beyond all your abominations.”

And again, Paul rebuking the unclean among the Romans thus aggravates the accusation, saying, that their usage was not only against the law of God, but even against nature. “For they changed the natural use into that which is against nature” (Romans 1:26). For this cause then here also he employs this argument signifying this very thing, both that he is not enacting any strange law and that among Gentiles their inventions would all be reckoned as a kind of novelty against nature. So also Christ, implying the same, said, “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye also so them;” showing that He is not introducing anything new.

“But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God.”

It is then contentiousness to oppose these things, and not any exercise of reason. Notwithstanding, even thus it is a measured sort of rebuke which he adopts, to fill them the more with self-reproach; which in truth rendered his saying the more severe. For we, says he, have no such custom, so as to contend and to strive and to oppose ourselves. And he stopped not even here, but also added, neither the Churches of God; signifying that they resist and oppose themselves to the whole world by not yielding. However, even if the Corinthians were then contentious, yet now the whole world has both received and kept this law. So great is the power of the Crucified.

Homily 12, on 1 Corinthians:

For how can it be other than worthy of the utmost condemnation that a damsel who has spent her life entirely at home and been schooled in modesty from earliest childhood, should be compelled on a sudden to cast off all shame, and from the very commencement of her marriage be instructed in imprudence; and find herself put forward in the midst of wanton and rude men, and unchaste, and effeminate? What evil will not be implanted in the bride from that day forth? Immodesty, petulance, insolence, the love of vain glory: since they will naturally go on and desire to have all their days such as these. Hence our women become expensive and profuse; hence are they void of modesty, hence proceed their unnumbered evils.

Behold then what follows from all this. Not in the day only but also in the evening, they provide on purpose men that have well drunk, besotted, and inflamed with luxurious fare, to look upon the beauty of the damsel’s countenance; nor yet in the house only but even through the market-place do they lead her in pomp to make an exhibition; conducting her with torches late in the evening so as that she may be seen of all: by their doings recommending nothing else than that henceforth she put off all modesty.

“What then, says one, do you find fault with marriage? Tell me.” That be far from me. I am not so senseless: but the things which are so unworthily appended to marriage, the painting the face, the coloring the eyebrows, and all the other niceness of that kind. For indeed from that day she will receive many lovers even before her destined consort.

And from another post-Nicene bishop, Ambrose of Milan, who lived from 339 – 397.

 

AMBROSE:

10. Was it a small sign of modesty that when Rebecca came to wed Isaac, and saw her bridegroom, she took a veil, that she might not be seen before they were united? Certainly the fair virgin feared not for her beauty, but for her modesty. What of Rachel, how she, when Jacob’s kiss had been taken, wept and groaned, and would not have ceased weeping had she not known him to be a kinsman? So she both observed what was due to modesty, and omitted not kindly affection. But if it is said to a man: Gaze not on a maid, lest she cause you to fall (Sirach 9:5), what is to be said to a consecrated virgin, who, if she loves, sins in mind; if she is loved, in act also? – Concerning Virginity, chapter 3

27. A banquet of death is set out with royal luxury, and when a larger concourse than usual had come together, the daughter of [queen Herodias], sent for from within the private apartments, is brought forth to dance in the sight of men. What could she have learned from an adulteress but loss of modesty? Is anything so conducive to lust as with unseemly movements thus to expose in nakedness those parts of the body which either nature has hidden or custom has veiled, to sport with the looks, to turn the neck, to loosen the hair? Fitly was the next step an offense against God. For what modesty can there be where there is dancing and noise and clapping of hands? – Concerning Virginity, chapter 6

69. Let custom itself teach us. A woman covers her face with a veil for this reason, that in public her modesty may be safe. That her face may not easily meet the gaze of a youth, let her be covered with the nuptial veil, so that not even in chance meetings she might be exposed to the wounding of another or of herself, though the wound of either were indeed
hers. But if she cover her head with a veil that she may not accidentally see or be seen (for when the head is veiled the face is hidden), how much more ought she to cover herself with the veil of modesty, so as even in public to have her own secret place. – Two Books Concerning Repentance, Chapter XIV

232. At the same time let us note that it is seemly to live in accordance with nature, and to pass our time in accordance with it, and that whatever is contrary to nature is shameful. For the Apostle asks: “Is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered; doth not nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? For it is contrary to
nature.” And again he says: “If a woman have long hair, it is a glory unto her.” It is according to nature, since her hair is given her for a veil, for it is a natural veil. Thus nature arranges for us both character and appearance, and we ought to observe her directions. – Three Books on the Duties of the Clergy, Chapter XLVI

25. But in the former the fruit is later, in virginity it is earlier; old age proves them, virginity is the praise of youth, and does not need the help of years, being the fruit of every age. It becomes early years, it adorns youth, it adds to the dignity of age, and at all ages it has the gray hairs of its righteousness, the ripeness of its gravity, the veil of modesty…. – The Treatise Concerning Widows, chapter IV

And lastly, a few quotes from Jerome, who lived from 342–420.

 

JEROME:

You should choose for your companions staid and serious women, particularly widows and virgins, persons of approved conversation, of few words, and of a holy modesty. Shun gay and thoughtless girls, who deck their heads and wear their hair in fringes, who use cosmetics to improve their skins and affect tight sleeves, dresses without a crease, and dainty buskins; and by pretending to be virgins more easily sell themselves into destruction. Moreover, the character and tastes of a mistress are often inferred from the behavior of her attendants. Regard as fair and lovable and a fitting companion one who is unconscious of her good looks and careless of her appearance; who does not expose her breast out of doors or throw back her cloak to reveal her neck; who veils all of her face except her eyes, and only uses these to find her way. – Letter 130, chapter 18

The women who ought to scandalize Christians are those who paint their eyes and lips with rouge and cosmetics; whose chalked faces, unnaturally white, are like those of idols; upon whose cheeks every chance tear leaves a furrow; who fail to realize that years make them old; who heap their heads with hair not their own; who smooth their faces, and rub out the wrinkles of age; and who, in the presence of their grandsons, behave like trembling school-girls. A Christian woman should blush to do violence to nature, or to stimulate desire by bestowing care upon the flesh. They that are in the flesh, the apostle tells us, cannot please God. – Letter 38, to Marcella, chapter 3

And then, speaking of a recently-deceased widow, who had repented of her luxurious lifestyle, he writes:

In days gone by our dear widow was extremely fastidious in her dress, and spent whole days before her mirror to correct its deficiencies…. In those days maids arranged her hair, and her head, which had done no harm, was forced into a waving head-dress. Now she leaves her hair alone, and her only head-dress is a veil. – Letter 38, to Marcella, chapter 4

There are some who hate their parents and have no affection for their kin. Their state of mind is indicated by a restlessness which disdains excuses; they rend the veil of chastity and put it aside like a cobweb. Such are the ways of women; not, indeed, that men are any better. – Letter 125, chapter 6

In a letter addressed to a virgin named Eustochium, he draws similar parallels from the Song of Songs as Origen does, advising her from its spiritual teachings about Christ’s bride:

Go not from home nor visit the daughters of a strange land, though you have patriarchs for brothers and Israel for a father. Dinah went out and was seduced. Do not seek the Bridegroom in the streets; do not go round the corners of the city. For though you may say: I will rise now and go about the city: in the streets and in the broad ways I will seek Him whom my soul loves, and though you may ask the watchmen: Have you seen Him whom my soul loves? no one will deign to answer you. The Bridegroom cannot be found in the streets: Strait and narrow is the way which leads unto life. So the Song goes on: I sought him but I could not find him: I called him but he gave me no answer. And would that failure to find Him were all. You will be wounded and stripped, you will lament and say: The watchmen that went about the city found me: they smote me, they wounded me, they took away my veil from me. Now… if one who could speak thus suffered so much because she went abroad, what shall become of us who are but young girls; of us who, when the bride goes in with the Bridegroom, still remain without? Jesus is jealous. He does not choose that your face should be seen of others. You may excuse yourself and say: I have drawn close my veil, I have covered my face and I have sought You there… yet in spite of your excuses He will be angry and say…. “Unless you know yourself, and keep your heart with all diligence, unless also you avoid the eyes of the young men, you will be turned out of My bride-chamber to feed the goats, which shall be set on the left hand.” – Letter 22, to Eustochium

But now that you have despised the boastfulness of the world, do not let the fact inspire you with new boastfulness. Harbor not the secret thought that having ceased to court attention in garments of gold you may begin to do so in mean attire. And when you come into a room full of brothers and sisters, do not sit in too low a place or plead that you are unworthy of a footstool. Do not deliberately lower your voice as though worn out with fasting; nor, leaning on the shoulder of another, mimic the tottering gait of one who is faint. Some women, it is true, disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. As soon as they catch sight of any one they groan, they look down; they cover up their faces, all but one eye, which they keep free to see with. Their dress is somber, their girdles are of sackcloth, their hands and feet are dirty; only their stomachs — which cannot be seen — are hot with food. Of these the psalm is sung daily: The Lord will scatter the bones of them that please themselves. Others change their garb and assume the mien of men, being ashamed of being what they were born to be — women. They cut off their hair and are not ashamed to look like eunuchs. – Letter 27, to Eustochium

 

SUMMING UP THE FATHERS:

And in addition to all these, there are numerous quotes from virtually every early Christian writer that can be named, which make some sort of reference to the kalupto veil, even if not specifically referencing female dress, all of which indicate these men only ever understood a veil to cover its object completely, not merely adorn a small part of it as a symbol. They believed a veil rendered something invisible.

Have you heard the fathers speak not only on the subject of the veil but also on makeup, and jewelry, and expensively-decorated clothing? And have you heeded their exhortations? If a veil is required for women, then makeup is automatically sinful, because makeup accomplishes the exact opposite objective that a veil does. A veil is the opposite of makeup, because a veil makes a woman’s face less noticeable and less conspicuous, while makeup makes it more alluring and more prominent. A veil dismisses lustful eyes, makeup invites them. A veil protects a woman’s chastity, makeup defiles it. A woman wearing a veil is content to be seen by no one but God, while a woman decking herself out in the devil’s pomp yearns for approval from carnal eyes. A veil conveys shamefacedness, makeup conveys a brazen spirit.

Thus, as you’ve heard the early church unanimously testify, all ornamentation, whether it’s of the head, or arms, or feet, or any part of the body, is inherently immodest because they serve the opposite objective of modesty. Modesty hides, but ornamentation boldly shows off.

How can you fulfill the command to be shamefaced if you adorn yourself externally? A shamefaced woman hides her face and doesn’t wish to be seen. Is that what you have in mind when you’re painting your face? You’re hoping no one sees you? Are you blushing at the thought of being admired for your beauty as you put on your jewels and brightly-colored clothing? Surely not. So choose from the two options: Either be modest, or adorn your body to look beautiful. But these are not compatible with each other.

 

MAKEUP IN THE BIBLE:

But even after all this has been said, even after it’s been established in the fathers and in Enoch that makeup was invented by the fallen angels and has no place on a Christian woman’s face, yet there will undoubtedly be someone who defiantly retorts, “But queen Esther wore makeup and jewelry! Wasn’t she a righteous woman?”

If you wish to be wise, you MUST put forth effort to reconcile the Scriptures with each other, especially the old testament with the new, because there are many such contradictions which can only be resolved with discernment and what the Lord Jesus calls “a good and honest heart.” If you’re already determined to never let go of makeup and all other forms of harlotry, then you will forever be pitting one Scripture against another in an attempt to justify your position. If you had discernment, you wouldn’t be making this objection. Nevertheless, we will answer this one objection and leave the rest to be answered by those who diligently seek the truth. If you had true love for God and desired to live holily, you would study to show yourself approved and realize the obvious difference between queen Esther and you.

The only time makeup is mentioned in Scripture is alongside harlots and women who are trying to seduce men. Tamar puts on makeup in order to fulfill the part of a harlot and entice Judah. Jezebel puts on makeup to seduce Jehu just before God kills her. In Isaiah, the whorish Jews are compared to a woman who wears makeup in order to entice men to fornicate with her. But heretics will say it’s pure coincidence that makeup is always mentioned alongside lustful women. They’ll say that the makeup on their faces had absolutely nothing to do with the sins they were judged for, and that makeup was mentioned for no reason at all. Yes, Tamar’s makeup had nothing to do with looking like a harlot. And Jezebel’s wickedness, which revolved around her overpowering her own husband to do her evil bidding, had nothing to do with her seductive makeup. And the description of the daughter of Zion whose makeup and flamboyant clothing are used to seduce many lovers have nothing to do with sin.

Genesis 38:14 – And she put her widow’s garments off from her, and covered herself with a veil, and put on makeup, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.

2 Kings 9:30: When Jehu came to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her eyes, and adorned her head, and looked out of the window.

Jeremiah 4:30: And you, O desolate one, what do you mean that you dress in scarlet, that you deck yourself with ornaments of gold, that you enlarge your eyes with paint? In vain you beautify yourself. Your lovers despise you; they seek your life.

Ezekiel 23:40-44: and lo, they came: for whom you washed yourself, painted your eyes, and decked yourself with ornaments, And sat upon a stately bed, and a table prepared before it, upon which you have set mine incense and mine oil. And a voice of a multitude being at ease was with her: and with the men of the common sort were brought Sabeans from the wilderness, which put bracelets upon their hands, and beautiful crowns upon their heads. Then said I unto her that was old in adulteries, Will they now commit w****doms with her, and she with them? Yet they went in unto her, as they go in unto a woman that plays the harlot: so went they in unto Aholah and unto Aholibah, the lewd women.

But there are indeed two righteous women mentioned in Holy Scripture who wore makeup. They are Esther and Judith. Esther was made to wear makeup by the Persian authorities in order to impress the carnal desires of a pagan king. Much like Rebecca’s jewelry and all other mentions of God giving royal garments and precious stones as gifts to His bride, these ornaments act as types which symbolize righteous works being given to the church, as bracelets go onto the hands, and the earrings represent the gospel being put in her ears.

Furthermore, both of these women acted as an example for all Christian women by demonstrating that they had no desire at all for beautiful clothing and instead wearing sackcloth in order to save their people. Of Esther, the Scriptures say:

Esther 4-5: Having taken off her glorious apparel, she put on garments of distress and mourning. Instead of grand perfumes she filled her head with ashes and dung. She greatly humbled her body, and she filled every place of her glad adorning with her tangled hair.

On the third day, when she ended her prayer, she took off the garments in which she had worshipped, and arrayed herself in splendid attire. Then, majestically adorned, after invoking the aid of the all-seeing God and Saviour, she took two maids with her; on one she leaned gently for support, while the other followed, carrying her train. She was radiant with perfect beauty, and she looked happy, as if beloved, but her heart was frozen with fear.

And after fasting from all food and water for three days, which you women who wear makeup would never do, she goes in to the king, decked out in all cosmetic beauty, which is meant to entice him through the carnal desire of her husband. This was lawful for her to do in order to save her people.

And likewise Judith, who prayed for Israel’s deliverance from the attacking Babylonians, used her beauty to subdue Holifernes, the attacking general of the Babylonian army, by appealing to his lustful eyes with makeup and beautiful clothes. In the book of Judith, we read:

Judith 8-9: Judith remained as a widow for three years and four months at home where she set up a tent for herself on the roof of her house. She put sackcloth around her waist and dressed in widow’s clothing. She fasted all the days of her widowhood, except the day before the sabbath and the sabbath itself, the day before the new moon and the day of the new moon, and the festivals and days of rejoicing of the house of Israel. She was beautiful in appearance, and was very lovely to behold.

Then Judith prostrated herself, put ashes on her head, and uncovered the sackcloth she was wearing.

When Judith had stopped crying out to the God of Israel, and had ended all these words, she rose from where she lay prostrate. She called her maid and went down into the house where she lived on sabbaths and on her festal days. She removed the sackcloth she had been wearing, took off her widow’s garments, bathed her body with water, and anointed herself with precious ointment. She combed her hair, put on a tiara, and dressed herself in the festive attire that she used to wear while her husband Manasseh was living. She put sandals on her feet, and put on her anklets, bracelets, rings, ear-rings, and all her other jewelry. Thus she made herself very beautiful, to entice the eyes of all the men who might see her.

And this is exactly what she did. When the Babylonian general saw her, he was astonished at her beauty and invited her into his tent, only to fall into her trap.

Judith 12: When Judith came into the presence of Holofernes and his servants, they all marveled at the beauty of her face.

So Holofernes commanded his guards not to hinder her. She remained in the camp for three days…. On the fourth day Holofernes held a banquet for his personal attendants only, and did not invite any of his officers. He said to Bagoas, the eunuch who had charge of his personal affairs, ‘Go and persuade the Hebrew woman who is in your care to join us and to eat and drink with us. For it would be a disgrace if we let such a woman go without having intercourse with her. If we do not seduce her, she will laugh at us.’

Then Judith came in and lay down. Holofernes’ heart was ravished with her and his passion was aroused, for he had been waiting for an opportunity to seduce her from the day he first saw her.

Judith 13:6-7: She went up to the bedpost near Holofernes’ head, and took down his sword that hung there. She came close to his bed, took hold of the hair of his head, and said, ‘Give me strength today, O Lord God of Israel!’ Then she struck his neck twice with all her might, and cut off his head.

Here is yet another example of a woman wearing beautiful clothes and makeup, and through her seduction she overpowered and destroyed a man. Is this behavior that Christian women should be emulating? We ought to think of makeup as the absolute antithesis of modesty, which simply means “to be covered.” Makeup is designed to draw attention, a veil is meant to hide. Makeup is applied meticulously in fine detail so as to attract the eyes and keep them fixed on the beauty of the subject, while a female head, when veiled, declares itself averse to attention from men.

 

HAIR-COVERING?

Let us now return to those deceivers who assure women that the veil of modesty has nothing to do with covering their beauty, and even go so far as to say, “Paul is only commanding women to cover their hair, not their head.”

These fakers, these actors, these hypocrites, want to stand up and call the kalupto a “prayer veil,” even though it’s nowhere referred to in the old testament as a veil for prayer, but rather a veil for modesty, and they want to make modesty revolve around covering the hair instead of the face. Somehow they miss the fact that women in every continent are wearing veils for modesty, and have been since the nations were dispersed at the tower of Babel. How do you then try to convince others that the veil is only a quaint symbol invented by Paul in the beginning of Christianity? How can so many men, such as David Bercot, quote Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, as if they approved their position and held the same definition of a veil, when both church fathers clearly explain that the ancient veil – even the one worn by the Jews and the pagans all around the world – completely covered the head, including the face?

How many times do the church fathers call the head covering a prayer veil? Ten times? Five times? Three times? Two times? One time? No. Zero times. Not even once do they name it a prayer veil. They call it “the veil of modesty” repeatedly. Guess how many people in ancient times called it a prayer veil? None. Zero. Paul didn’t invent his own version of the kalupto veil. He used a word that everyone understood and which already had two thousand years of historical precedence to get his point across.

Paul not only talks about covering the head for the sake of prayer, but covering “the woman.” He asks, “Is it proper for a woman to pray uncovered?” In this instance, it’s not just her head, but the whole woman he’s referring to. Then, after mentioning that the entire woman should be covered, Paul gives four other reasons for why women ought to be covered – because woman was made out of man, because woman was made FOR man, because nature itself teaches you, and because of the angels – all of which have nothing to do with prayer at all! When Paul says that nature itself teaches you that it would be disgraceful for a man to have long hair, and for a woman to be shaved, he’s referring to the universal practice of mankind to cut short the hair of men and grow long the hair of women. Obviously men and women do not naturally grow hair at different lengths according to their gender. If a man were to refrain from cutting his hair, it would grow to the same length as a woman’s. Rather, the word for “nature” here is referring to the prevailing custom, that women covered their heads in public while men kept their heads uncovered. Paul is not exclusively talking about prayer here, but rather covering up for the sake of modesty, especially during prayer, because praying to God or prophesying to His people while dressed immodestly is a special affront toward Him.

Lastly, he says all the rest of the churches follow this custom of covering up their women, which destroys every lofty argument brought forward by heretics who try to persuade us that this is only a cultural issue at Corinth. This is a universal command for all of the churches of God.

To say that this type of dress is relegated only to prayer is to ignore the fact that Paul says a woman sins if she is unveiled while praying OR PROPHESYING. Does a person prophesy to themselves, or to others? Obviously, they prophesy to others. And I make this point because there are some that advocate the false head-covering who insist that Paul’s commands have nothing to do with public appearance, but only one’s appearance before God, whether public or private. But these people ignore Paul’s specific words. He doesn’t only mention the head when he says women should be covered, but the WHOLE body.

How can these people use Paul’s words to justify their prayer veil, which only covers the hair? On the one hand, they’ll admit that nature has dictated a woman ought to have long flowing hair and that men should be distinct by having short hair, but then they’ll turn around and say the hair should be bound up and not even cover the head! What is the meaning of this? How can you simultaneously admit long flowing hair is natural and then insist on tying the hair in a bun, when the scriptures clearly tell you that the hair is meant to be a covering, a blanket over the head? How is it supposed to cover the head like a shawl if you bind it up?

Then there’s this business about it only being required during church meetings. Paul is not only talking about church meetings. Is a man only the head of woman at church meetings? Or does nature itself only teach that women ought to cover their heads at church meetings? Wow, that’s oddly specific of you, nature! Was the hair given as a covering only at church meetings? OR… is a woman’s long hair always attached to her head, implying a more universal rule pertaining to modesty?

 

COVERING THE COVERING?

When a woman unties her hair, it falls down and covers the back, sides, and front of the head, even the neck. Her hair even covers the chest and back. In fact, the hair can even reach down to the loins! In most pictures you’ll find of Adam and Eve, you’ll notice that the artists deliberately depict Eve’s hair as a covering over her breasts. This is a rudimentary type of covering that God provides for all women, and it acts as a natural covering for any woman lacking a veil. Contrary to the false teaching about veils that is prevalent among the anabaptists and other denominations, the hair itself IS a covering. It is not that which NEEDS to be covered. Just because Tertullian says that a head-covering ought to fall over the same region that the hair covers doesn’t mean the hair itself is what must be covered! Rather, Tertullian actually says that the hair acts as a template for where the veil ought to be draped over the head, and that it gives an indication of how the head ought to be covered. If my wife were out in public and somehow lost her veil, she would let down her hair and cover her whole head with it, performing the designated function of her hair. She would not pull her hair back in a bun and expose her face for the world to see, all for sake of covering her hair!

But the anabaptists understand this principle in the opposite sense, and fail to recognize the hair as a covering! They don’t even let it cover a woman’s head in the natural way, but rather take away the hair’s natural effect of covering! They act as if a woman’s hair is the PRIMARY source of her beauty, so that the hair ought to be bound AWAY from the face as much as possible, with a small doily to cover the top (but not the sides or front of the head, which also leaves the neck completely exposed), and they think the highest standard of modesty is achieved this way – by removing the natural covering God gave a woman, and replacing it with an even smaller one! And even then, these people who believe the hair itself must be covered (but not the head itself in any meaningful way) use a doily that DOES NOT completely cover the hair! So what is the purpose of covering part of it?

You’ve lost all common sense, and you fail to grasp the meaning of the apostle’s words. Paul says the HAIR is given as a covering. He calls it a “shawl” or a “blanket.” And what is it supposed to cover? The HEAD, which is underneath the hair. But you reverse the order of modesty and think that the head itself ought to reveal itself in FRONT of the veil, while the veil hides BEHIND the head! Yes, the woman’s face is bared first of all, while the doily hides out of sight in the back.

I suppose, then, that you should wear an additional veil on top of your doily, in order to cover that which God has termed a covering, and then you should wear another veil on top of that one in endless succession, until you have a thousand veils covering your hair alone, but not covering your face. How absurd is your doctrine. Its absurdity resembles that of Hassidic Jews, who invented this idea of hair needing to be covered at the expense of modesty, and who require that their wives never expose any of their hair in public, but allow them to purchase wigs to place ON TOP of their natural hair. Yes, you heard that correctly. Orthodox Jews strictly prohibit the exposure of a woman’s God-given hair, but almost all of their women go around wearing long hair wigs, sometimes even more beautiful than their natural hair, without any veil covering the wig, and this is considered modest in their man-made tradition, because they’ve redefined modesty. You partial head-coverers are cut from the same cloth, so to speak, as these heretical Jews (there are some MIND-BOGGLING lines in this video; collect them and play them for the viewer).

But if a woman were to let her hair down and cover her face completely using only her hair, like Cousin Itt from The Addam’s Family, who would find that attractive? It is not the hair alone which makes a woman beautiful, but her face first of all, while the hair adorns and complements the face. Beauty is mostly in the face, not the hair, because hair is an addition to the head. Hair is not the head itself! When Paul commands you to cover your head, covering the hair is not his object! Paul never once says to cover the hair, nor do any of the church fathers. They say to cover the head. Or else, if all references to the head are to be reinterpreted as only speaking of the hair, what do you think? When John the Baptist was being beheaded, was he only getting a haircut? But as we’ve already said, you who pretend the hair is all that need be covered don’t even cover the hair completely, so it’s obvious you don’t even respect your own arguments.

The hair is a covering. The hair does not constitute the head itself. If you find this picture attractive, there’s something wrong with you, because the woman’s head is not even visible. Hair complements the head like clothing complements the body, but clothing by itself, floating in the air, cannot be an object of sexual lust.

When the angels fell into lust because of women, were they lusting after their hair, or the back of their heads? Were they staring at the swirl of their scalps, which is the only part your doilies cover? What a ridiculous concept! In the scriptures, it is always the EYES, and the MOUTH, that are said to be beautiful. “Do not let her capture you with her eyelids,” etc. “Her lips drip honey.”

But you put on performances at wedding ceremonies, where the bride covers her face with a veil, and the groom pretends he hasn’t seen what she looks like yet, as if you were following the tradition from ancient times, and when the minister tells the groom that he can remove her veil and kiss her, he acts like it’s the first time he’s seen her face. So you admit that the veil covers the face, and you roleplay as if she were a virgin who covered her face before marriage, as they did in ancient times. Suddenly you know what a veil is! Then you go back to pretending the veil is a doily which sticks to the back of the head, or you wear no veil at all.

In ancient times, the unveiling of the bride was the pivotal moment of a wedding, and it actually happened apart from any non-relatives. The bride was unveiled for the first time by her husband either in her father’s house (with her family looking on) or in the bridal chamber. It was not in front of friends or acquaintances, let alone strangers. Nor was there any public kissing, as that was highly frowned upon, and there are a few church fathers who specifically command us not to even kiss our wives in view of any servants in the house. Yet the practice of kissing fully-unveiled wives in public is commonplace in America, and very shameful because it incites lust in others.

 

HERETICAL TEACHERS:

David Bercot’s answer to Nolan’s question.

But who are these leaders in the head-covering movement in America who have the nerve to tell women that the early church fathers would have approved these false head-coverings, these “hair-coverings,” these so-called “prayer veils?” One of the figureheads is David Bercot, who is touted as an expert in early Christian beliefs. In a recent video where he answered questions about the veil, he spoke many daring falsehoods, and we will now respond to those statements.

“Clement is very specific on the veil covering the face.” – David Bercot

And so is Tertullian. It was Tertullian who said, “So perilous a face ought to be hidden,” which you just read.

“Well… women in Egypt did it because that was the practice of women to veil their face….” – David Bercot

Yes, and it was the practice of women to veil their faces all around the world, David, as we’ve shown. Christian women weren’t bullied into doing it because the pagans were doing it. They were commanded by God to veil their faces, and they read the Old Testament, which clearly shows the custom of veiling among Jewish women throughout history.

“People think Muslims invented the veil, but that’s because they’re the only ones doing it today.” – David Bercot

Wrong, David. Half of all Indian women were veiling their faces up until just recently, and India has a population of 1.4 billion people. That’s a lot of veiled women.

“The women in Arabia and Egypt were already veiled, so it made sense for the Christian women to do that, too.” – David Bercot

David, is that the reason the church fathers give for veiling, that “everybody else is doing it, so it makes sense for us to do it?” No. They don’t unanimously instruct women to veil the face because everyone else is doing it, although they certainly do point out that it’s shameful for Christians to not even dress as modestly as pagans. Rather, the church fathers point out that God has explicitly commanded women to be veiled with a very specific kind of veil that COMPLETELY covers them, and to dress modestly. That is why Christian women wore veils, because they were obeying God.

“They didn’t veil in Greece or Rome.” – David Bercot

Oh really? They weren’t veiling their faces in Greece or Rome? You are so obviously wrong, David, because Hippolytus was a presbyter in Rome when he said women must wear an opaque veil and not a transparent one, which demonstrates that he’s concerned about modesty, not just a vague symbol. And you’ve also got Ambrose of Milan, just north of Rome, saying they should cover their entire face. Then you have Jerome living IN Rome saying the same thing. Then you have Chrysostom in Constantinople saying women must cover their entire body including the face. Then you have Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian in North Africa all saying women should not reveal any part of themselves, but you still think it’s highly unlikely that the Christians in Greece, who were speaking the Greek language and knew exactly what Paul meant when he said women should be kalupto’d, based on 2000 years of Greek history, would have veiled their faces?

Somehow you missed the fact that at the beginning of Tertullian’s book, he specifically mentions that the Christian women living in Greece were still veiling themselves in his day, according to HIS definition of a veil. He says, 

Throughout Greece, and certain of its barbaric provinces, the majority of Churches keep their virgins covered. There are places, too, beneath this (African) sky, where this practice obtains; lest any ascribe the custom to Greek or barbarian Gentilehood. – On The Veiling of Virgins, chapter 2

And you can also add Corinth to that list, because he goes on to say:

So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve. – On The Veiling of Virgins, chapter 8

… This observance is exacted by truth, on which no one can impose prescription — no space of times, no influence of persons, no privilege of regions. – On The Veiling of Virgins, chapter 1

But I have proposed (as models) those Churches which were founded by apostles or apostolic men…. Those Churches therefore, as well (as others), have the self-same authority of custom (to appeal to)…. Let me say it once for all, we are one Church. Thus, whatever belongs to our brethren is ours: only, the body divides us. – On The Veiling of Virgins, chapter 2

Still, David continues to fight against the truth, so that he may uphold the style of immodest dress that’s popular among his Mennonite friends.

“Tertullian says there are multiple veiling practices around the world, and that most of the Christian women around the world weren’t veiling the face.” – David Bercot

Unbelievable, David, that you would say that. That is absolutely not what Tertullian says at all, in the slightest, and everyone who’s watching can see that clearly. Tertullian does not say exposing the face is an acceptable option for a Christian woman, nor does he say the other churches were using a different veil than the one he was talking about. He says on the contrary that he occasionally sees women who wear lousy, inadequate veils, and that they should stop it immediately because a doily or a turban is not a true veil.

But we admonish you, too, women of the second (degree of) modesty, who have fallen into wedlock, not to outgrow so far the discipline of the veil, not even in a moment of an hour, as, because you cannot refuse it, to take some other means to nullify it, by going neither covered nor bare. For some, with their turbans and woollen bands, do not veil their head, but bind it up; protected, indeed, in front, but, where the head properly lies, bare. Others are to a certain extent covered over the region of the brain with linen coifs of small dimensions — I suppose for fear of pressing the head — and not reaching quite to the ears. If they are so weak in their hearing as not to be able to hear through a covering, I pity them. Let them know that the whole head constitutes the woman. Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which power ought to be had on the head: the veil is their yoke. Arabia’s heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face. – Tertullian, On The Veiling of Virgins, chapter 17

As you can see here, Tertullian says that women who wear turbans and doilies are not veiling their heads at all because their face is still exposed, and he shames those women who allow heathen females to dress more modestly than they do. Nowhere in Tertullian’s books on female modesty did he say it was permissible for women to leave their faces uncovered. “So perilous a face ought to be hidden.”

One more thing, David completely misunderstands Tertullian’s quote about Jewish women, where he says:

Among the Jews, so usual is it for their women to have the head veiled, that they may thereby be recognised. – De Corona, The Chaplet, chapter 4

In David Bercot’s audio sermon on the head-covering, he says:

[Tertullian’s quote] shows that it wasn’t the custom of all women to veil themselves in public because if it were, Jewish women couldn’t be recognized because of their veils, could they? – David Bercot

David has completely misunderstood Tertullian’s meaning. Tertullian just got done saying that all of the women of Arabia are veiled, and all of the women of Greece, and all of the Christian women around the world. So if even the pagans are veiling their women, how could Tertullian possibly be saying that veiling is a special distinction of Jewish women? That’s obviously not what he’s saying. It’s very clear that what Tertullian is ACTUALLY saying is that Jewish women are so universally known to veil their entire heads that women are RECOGNIZED by the distinctions between their veils, not by their faces. That’s how you tell them apart, by their clothing.

“I want to praise women who wear ANYTHING on their head at all.” – David Bercot

Oh yes, David, that’s so brave of them to go against the grain and plop these puny pancakes on their heads, in opposition to God’s commands and the practice of not only the church but the whole world, until recently. Anabaptist women in your circles wear the very type of head covering Tertullian condemns as insufficient and immodest, and you pretend it still approaches some standard of modesty. How can you admit the veil has always been about modesty, and then say that a doily is acceptable, when you know full-well that a woman wearing so little clothing in the early church would have been rebuked as a harlot?

You think you’re being so conservative by encouraging women to “just wear something on their head,” since the current standard of modesty among Christians is so bereft of any modesty whatsoever, but what standard of modesty are you conserving with this modern definition of a veil, David? How are you benefiting anyone by telling them they’re doing “enough” by simply wearing slightly more clothing than the people running around naked all around us? You would tell a woman that wearing a mini-skirt is superior to wearing skinny jeans, because a skirt is closer to a dress. This is the height of hypocrisy. It’s play-acting, it’s performing. God sees through this half-hearted lip-service you’re advocating.

And you Mennonite women, you want to be counted as a Christian, even a highly-modest Christian woman, but you’re barely managing to impersonate those women who are TRULY brave, those who cover themselves entirely. What is so scary about wearing a doily? If that truly terrifies you, then imagine being a Muslim woman. A Muslim who hates Christ is braver than you are.

 

NOLAN’S POINT:

There is a law of identity in the universe; a thing is what it is, “A is A” as Socrates said. Every reasonable person knows this; regardless of how you identify yourself to others, if you do not match the criteria of whatever you attempt to pass yourself off as then your claims are irrelevant, even if you double down after being exposed. If a person lies about their identity there’s a phrase people commonly respond with, “Yeah, and I’m the pope!” But who would expect anything else from a culture, such as America, that now struggles to distinguish gender? You see, if you think publicly claiming to be a Christian woman or personally believing you are a Christian woman determines whether or not you are a Christian woman, then you are no different than the man who claims to be a woman. But God laughs at both of you! God knows a man in drag isn’t biologically a woman, just as he knows a woman dressed as a w**** isn’t a Christian.

And I’m not the only one saying you’re dressed like a w****, you American woman, but the entire ancient world is telling you! The pagans dress more modestly than you! The worshipers of demons follow Christ’s commands better than you! Muslims dress more modestly than you, and you scorn them! Most importantly, the church of the apostolic age has disowned you as Christians, and I’m sorry to say that many of you who live in even the most conservative and sheltered sects of Christianity have taught your daughters and wives to dress like harlots. You women would be assumed to be harlots if anyone saw you in the early church!

All we can hope and pray is that God release you from the deception of those men who disparage the early church by claiming them as supporters of their deviant practices. May God convict you to uphold the true customs of mother church, to not “move the ancient landmark, which your fathers have set,” and to abide in the Father’s love by keeping His commandments.