Greek and Tertullian Veiling Versus Jewish Jewelry
Article dN
Please see the interesting photos included below

Many women among the ancient Greeks as well as among many austere Christians, were required to wear anti beauty and obscuring veils.  Tertullian who is considered an important Christian father by many, was sadly negative about woman, and insinuated that woman who led Adam into sin in the beginning, is not worthy of clothing other than animal skins, and advocated women's faces should even be veiled.  Tertullian even used heathen veiling traditions, where women were veiled insomuch they could only see with one eye, as a tool to promote his veiling emphasis.  Note, Tertullian further considered intimacy in marriage a disgrace and largely disallowed intercourse in marriage.  Tertullian's anti beauty and obscuring veiling emphasis quite obviously derived from austere and false heathen customs rather than from Godly Jewish customs, as Jewish women quite obviously were never veiled as Tertullian advocated.  It must be admitted that Tertullian like veiling of women does not in any way correspond with the wearing of jewelry and beautifying adornments as Godly Jewish women freely wore in old times.  One should here honestly consider how greatly opposite anti beauty and obscuring veils are of jewelry and beautiful adornments.  The truth that jewelry, and the anti beauty veil are so opposite, very strongly indicates that Jewish women did not wear anti beauty and obscuring veils, while at the same time wearing jewelry and beautifying adornments.  Many Scriptures speak of Jewish women being adorned with jewelry and beautiful clothing.  When King Saul died, King David told the women to weep for Saul who clothed them in scarlet and other delights, and who put ornaments of gold upon their apparel (2 Sam 1:24).  Apostle Paul even though unmarried, realizing the blessing and value of woman spoke of woman being the glory of man, and spoke of her hair being a special glory to her (1 Cor 11:7&15).  All such sounds shockingly different than Tertullian, who spoke of woman being the devil's gateway, spoke of woman being she who persuaded Adam who the devil was not valiant enough to attack, she who is worthy of nothing but animal skins, and she whose face should even be veiled!  Note, although this article focuses on Tertullian, obviously others before and after Tertullian very much shared his austere emphasis.  This emphasis grew and resulted in total celibacy being required of the Catholic Priests, resulted in intercourse in marriage being counted a disgrace and basically being disallowed even in marriage, and resulted in women being wrongfully distained and veiled.  Methodius, who wrote about a hundred years after Tertullian, and who also is considered an important church father, advocated that the reason none of the Patriarchs or Prophets before Christ chose or praised the state of virginity was because this doctrine was left for the Lord alone to initiate, and then goes on to say,  "for it was fitting that He who was first and chief of priests, of prophets, and of angels, should also be saluted as first and chief of virgins. For in old times man was not yet perfect, and for this reason was unable to receive perfection, which is virginity."  (ECF Vol 6 Page 567).  Wow, what a statement!  Yet Apostle Paul said marriage in honorable in all, and said it is the doctrine of devils that forbade marriage (Heb 13:4, 1 Tim 4:1-4)!  It has been said, and likely is true that the more Catholic Christianity became ruled by bachelors the more disdained marriage, woman, and sexuality became, and the better bachelors were made!  The term "hail virgin Mary" does not only pertain to honoring Mary but rather to honoring virginity, while many among Catholic Christianity even claim Mary remained a virgin all her life.     dN-1
Now concerning the appearance of ancient Jewish women in special worship and public activities, if at such times Jewish women were required to wear anti beauty and obscuring veils, it appears they then also would have been required to correspondingly refrain from their jewelry.  Yet no Scriptures anywhere indicate that Jewish women were traditionally required to refrain from jewelry and adornments in worship or public.  Rather in Jewish worship it appears that which pertained to glory and beauty was very appropriate, as shown by the Priest's Holy garments being covered with jewelry.  Further Priest's had to be physically unblemished to perform and all the Israelites were to be very physically clean in their religious activities, which all relates to glory rather than shame.  The Israelites in their routine religious activities also were to come before the Lord with rejoicing and thanksgiving rather than sorrow (Deu 12:5-18, 16:10-15, Mal 2:13).  Yet in times of deep repentance and grief, the Jews then opposite of glory and beauty covered their heads with sackcloth, which is similar to veiling, and also put on dust and ashes which also is opposite of glory, and obviously unclean.  One should consider all these things and consider that no Scriptures teach that Jewish women needed to refrain from jewelry in their joyful religious activities and worship, and consider that likewise no Scriptures speak of Jewish women needing to wear anti beauty and obscuring veils in public or worship, or anytime.  Concerning feminine veils in Jewish history, although few Scriptures speak about such, feminine veils very much could simply have been decorative veils to enhance beauty rather than hinder it.  The Bible very much speaks of feminine veils together with jewelry and various feminine adornments.  Yet some kinds of veils obviously also could have been for warmth.       dN-2
Now concerning woman's hair, several Old Testament Scriptures speak about woman's hair being a special glory to woman (Song 4:1, Song 6:5, Song 7:5, Ezek 16:7).  Isaiah 3:24 speaks about Jewish women normally having well set hair, yet this Scripture also speaks about this beauty of the Jewish women being taken away in the punishments that were to come.  Note, many Scriptures also speak of God removing food in punishing His people for their sins.  Concerning woman's hair, Apostle Paul in the New Testament likewise speaks of woman's longer hair being a special glory to woman (1 Cor 11:15).  Note, the fact that women wiped Jesus feet with their hair reveals that these women had longer hair, while Revelations 9:8 speaks of some creatures having hair like women, quite obviously meaning longer hair.  In old Jewish history, hair and hair length was a quite vital issue.  Hair was shaved to show distress and lament deaths as well as in making vows (Job 1:19-21, Acts 21:23-24).  The Nazarite's hair was even included in their offering made by fire (Num 6:18).  One should here remember the importance of Samson's hair, who was a Nazarite from the womb (Judges 13:5)!  Appropriate hair length was vital for the Priest, as Priest's were not to shave their heads or to have long hair (Ezek 44:20).  Appropriate hair as God intends, obviously is a vital God given covering for both men and women.       dN-3
Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 quite emphatically advocated that man should not be inappropriately covered, because he is the image and glory of God.  What is man thus not to be covered with since he was made in, and is the image and glory of God?  The Priests worshipped before God in the most Holy place with glorious head wear, but were not to have long hair.  It should here also be considered that Apostle Paul quite closely together with teaching that man shames his head by praying with his head covered, also taught that long hair is a shame to man.  In public praying and prophesying both men and women, especially are to be an example of God's order for them, and are not to be shamefully or inappropriately attired in such a situation.  Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 together with advocating that man should not be inappropriately covered (as he is the image and glory of God), therewith also advocated woman should be appropriately covered because she is the glory of man.  Thus with what should women be covered with in being the glory of man?  Should she be covered with some kind of cloth veil to void her glory in worship and public, or be appropriately covered with long hair which Paul said is a glory to woman (rather than cutting it short like a man)?  One should here remember how ancient Jewish women quite obviously wore jewelry in public and in worship, and which is quite opposite of Tertullian veiling.  Obviously since woman is to be the glory of man and her longer hair is a special glory to her, she is not to obscure that glory all the time, like too many religious women do!  This obvious truth should be pondered.  Paul particularly emphasized if a woman is not appropriately covered such is one with being shaven, and said she should thus just as well be shaven or shorn (v 5-6).  Paul thereby could readily have meant if woman lacks her God intended and comely covering, she should be shorn or shaven like a sheep at the shearers and thus remove the rest of her hair, which obviously would be a shame to a woman.       dN-4
Apostle Paul in concluding his teaching about women being appropriately covered made some very revealing statements, saying that a woman's long hair is a glory to her, and given to her for and instead of a veil, and quite obviously meaning the oppressive veil which many Greek women wore.  According to the original Greek the word "for" in 1 Cor 11:15 very much means "for" in the sense of instead of, such as in the term, "the poor little boy used an old blanket for a coat".  Although the following issues might be hard for some to grasp, yet how can they be refuted?  The Greek word ANTI underlying the word "for" in the term "for a covering" is translated as instead of and in the room of close to 150 times in the Scriptures, and very much is a word meaning replacement and exchange.  Further the Greek word ANTI underlying the word "for", very much also is a word pertaining to conflict and opposition as is our word "anti" in antichrist.  Thus it is very possible that Paul was really saying a woman's long hair is a glory to her and given to her instead of and in opposition to the heathen veil.  Further according to the Greek, Paul in 1 Cor 11:7-10 advocated that since woman is the glory of man and especially made for man she should thus have freedom and liberty on her head because of or with the Angels in glory.  Note, the Greek word power in the term "power on her head" very much pertains to liberty and freedom as revealed in many other verses (John 1:12, Acts 5:4, Romans 9:21, 1 Cor 7:4, 1 Cor 8:9, 9:4-6&12&18, 2 Thes 3:9, Heb 13:10, Rev 22:14, note in some of these verses the Greek word for power is translated as liberty and right).  Paul further then in his second letter to the Corinthians of Greece, again spoke about veiling, and advocated liberty in Christ, and said Christ took away the veil, and advocated that women should come before God with an unveiled face (2 Cor 3:14-18).  Now with all this how can some Christians, condemn Christian women who do not wear a veil?  The concluding words of a teaching are of most importance, as they often are a short summery and clarification of all that was said before and thus Paul's conclusion should be carefully considered.  Paul concluded his special teaching about women being appropriately covered largely saying, "Just use your own common sense, to determine whether it is comely or becoming that a woman pray to God uncovered.  Yet even nature teaches you that if man has long hair that isn't appropriate.  But if woman has long hair that is a glory to her for it is given to her instead of a veil".  (1 Cor 11:13-15).  Wow what an ending, please read that again.  This Scripture in the KJV reads, "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?  Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?  But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for [instead of] a covering [veil]".       dN-5
It is sad that the long hair of some wives is basically never a glory and a covering to them as Paul spoke of and as God intended (not even outside of worship), but because of man's veiling traditions rather is a perpetual hidden nuisance to them.  Should not their husbands speak up, as wives by making their longer hair, which is to be a glory to them, a perpetual hidden nuisance, largely look no different than if their long hair was all cut off, and appears are shaming both their physical and spiritual heads, similarly as if they were shorn.  Husbands and wives often work hard to make things beautiful for one another, while yet at the same time some wives must harm the beauty that their husbands appreciate the most, and which is their own beauty.  Most ironic of all, this all is done while Christians are thinking they are following God's laws, yet quite obviously rather are following a heathen tradition.  How sad.  How many sincere Christian women have lived and died, and been buried wearing a veil, and yet the veil is a flag or a testimony of what?  May God be merciful to them in life and in the grave.  Does it not appear the anti beauty and obscuring veil really derives from ancient Greek heathendom, and does it not appear that Paul rebuked it?  Paul said, woman's long hair is a glory to her and given instead of a veil, said woman whose hair is a glory to her and who is the glory of man, should have freedom on her head because or with the Angels in glory.  Paul further advocated liberty in Christ, said Christ took away the veil, and said all should come before God with an unveiled face, and further particularly said all this to a society where oppressive heathen veiling customs were practiced.  One should here remember that in Paul's background and Jewish society, feminine jewelry and adornments had been worn and such rather than anti beauty and obscuring Tertullian like veils.  Further, Paul in his background was accustomed to the Priests wearing splendid head gear and garments covered with jewelry in their special worship, while yet long hair was considered shameful to men and was unlawful for the Priests.  Realizing these issues, should help one understand what Paul was speaking about in this chapter.       dN-6
Although a very popular thought among some Christians is that women's long hair must be wadded together and hidden under a veil to show or symbolize the wife's subjection to her husband, yet it appears 1 Corinthians chapter 11 rather is teaching something quite different.  Is it not quite ironic that some Christian wives, basically never cause or allow their long hair to be a glorious covering to them, although the Scriptures so clearly speak of it being a special glory to woman and which is a shame to remove?  If it is a shame to remove it, why should it be thought honorable to always mask it and make it look no different than if it were removed?  Is it not also ironic that some wives even directly against their husband's desires, basically always hide their glory under a veil, to supposedly symbolize their subjection to their husbands?  In concluding this article, the following obvious and quite obvious issues should be remembered;      dN-7

Firstly, it is quite obvious Paul in writing to the Corinthians of Greece was writing to a society were oppressive heathen veiling traditions were practiced.      dN-10
Secondly, it is quite obvious Jewish women with their jewelry and other beautifying adornments, were quite removed from anti beauty and obscuring head and hair veils.      dN-11
Thirdly, it is obvious that the Greek word ANTI in Paul's term "her hair is give to her for [anti] a covering", means instead of and exchange, and thus is translated as "instead of" and "in the room of" over a hundred times in the Scriptures, while also being a word significantly meaning opposition and conflict as in antichrist.        dN-12
Fourthly, according to the Greek it is obvious that the word "covering" in Paul's term "her hair is give to her instead of a covering" means a cloth veil of some kind.      dN-13
Fifthly, it is obvious that Paul actually taught that woman, whose hair is a glory to her, and who is the glory of man, should have power and liberty on her head because of or with the Angels.  Note, the Greek word underlying "because" sometimes is translated as with, which would make this term read, "power and freedom on her head with the Angels".  Or one could say "freedom on her head because of the Angels example.      dN-14
Sixthly, it is obvious that the Jewish Priests in old times worshiped with jewelry on their Priestly garments and with glorious head gear, and yet were not to have long hair.      dN-15
Seventhly it is obvious that right after Paul advocated we should simply judge in ourselves whether it is comely for a woman to pray uncovered, he then immediately spoke of long hair yet being a shame to man, and which would make it appear he was talking of hair all along.       dN-16
Eighthly it is obvious that false religion and men's laws often are oppressive, while God's good laws rather set people free, for which cause King David said, And I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts", for which cause Jesus said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free", and for which cause Apostle James spoke of God's laws being the perfect law of liberty (Psa 119:45, John 8:32, James 1:25, 2:12).      dN-17
And lastly, it is obvious that those who refuse to honestly consider or learn will never change their minds, but will exaggerate and twist the issues they like and minimize and confuse the issues that they don't like, and like Jesus said strain at gnats and swallow camels, and thus will die and be buried with their old errors.       dN-18
It is interesting to me that one of my first Bibles, which I likely got when I was 11 to 14 years old has what looks like a big bite taken out of a page and Scripture.  And guess where that bite is taken out of my old Bible.  See the photo below to see.  None of my Bibles have another page with a bite taken out of it like this page does.  It is interesting how the bite starts at the last part of verse seven right where Paul speaks about woman being the glory of man, while the bite then continues right through the most essential part of Paul's teaching.  I think this unusual tear happened soon after I got this Bible and likely over 30 years ago.  Yet I am not sure when it happened and have no idea how it happened.      dN-20


In the last two years as I studied and discovered many things about this Scripture, this bite out of my old Bible has become quite impressive to me, although I never paid any attention to it before.  It appears untruth has bitten into and largely stolen this Scripture.  Various Bible translations even directly contradict with one another regarding this Scripture.  For many years I too ignorantly defended a descended form of the Tertullian veil, yet after reading some informative literature of W. Stoppels', and after researching Greek history and Scriptures and discovering many vital and obvious things about veiling, I began to see things very differently, and which often brought tears to my eyes.       dN-21
Further after writing all the above I then ran into something else quite interesting.  After I showed my family the above page with the bite taken out of it at that peculiar place, my daughter than looked through other Bibles to see if she could find something similar elsewhere.  She then actually found a page in my wife's old Bible with a bite taken out of a page just about the same size and shape as the bite in my Bible.  I had thought the tear or bite in my Bible as above, almost looked intentional, and I wondered if someone did it on purpose.  Notice how perfectly curved the above tear or bite is.  Yet after my daughter found a quite similar bite in my wife's Bible I felt it likely was not done on purpose as those kind of tears could just happen.  Then when I read the verses right by the bite in my wife's Bible was I ever amazed, as the two verses which were almost in the middle of the bite read as follows;       dN-22
(Gen 38:14-15)  "And she put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, 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.  When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face."      dN-23
This is a picture of the page in my wife's Bible.  


It is amazing how Tertullian advocated women's faces should be veiled, while this Scripture speaks of harlots veiling their faces and being known by such veiling.  It could be that in old times some harlots covered their faces to hide their identity to avoid any personal feelings about the situation.  In concluding this article my wish is that those truths and those evidences which point us to truth, and which have been taken out of our Bibles by the devouring mouth of falsehood would be placed back in our Bibles so truth would be clearly known.  Although the face veiling Greek and Tertullian veil, is largely extinct in Christendom today, may we not erroneously hold to anything that is a descendent of it.  Although the bites in my Bible as well as my wife's Bible, and where they happen to be is amazing, yet the Scriptures and obvious issues considered in this article are much more amazing and important.  Please honestly consider them.  Note, articles cS, cU, and cZ found at "TeachMeGod.com" also consider this subject and more extensively.  May God teach us all and have mercy on us all.  God Bless.     dN-24
030606   3804