Head Covering
"Why do you not have holy elohim cover their heads?"
Advanced warning, this topic will get into some territory that may be more controversial.
Let me start with a few verses from 1 Corinthians chapter 11.
7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
There is a lot to unpack here. To avoid as much controversy, let me just say that I am not attempting to teach everything that follows. I am just sharing it. Take it, leave it, research it for yourself.
First let's tackle the statement that man should not cover his head since he is the image and glory of God. This is taken from Genesis 1:26-27. This is reinforced in how the description in Genesis 2's description, God forms man with his own hands (compare further Job 10:8) and breathes into his nostrils the breath of life. God provides food for the man (and the wife God makes later) and cares for them. This is very similar to the rituals for creating idols, including ritually opening its eyes and washing it's mouth and then people would dress it, feed it, and attend to it. It also resembles the processes with a newborn child. Another example would be the ephod of the priests described in Exodus 39. This was very similar to how idols were dressed. God even included a plate to be worn on the priest's turban that said, "a Holy object for Yahweh". This adds more flavor to the commandment to not [take up/bear/carry the name of Yahweh your God for what is worthless/false/empty]. The Bible writers had no context for dropping God's name is any variant of "swear bombs" like we do. This is effectively saying, "God's name is upon you, oh Israel. Don't bear it to no effect." In many ways, God is saying, don't make any graven images of me, because you are already my image.
So, that explains man not covering his head? Where do angels come in here? Let's go back to Genesis 1:26-27. God is speaking and says, "Let us make man..." and then it says "God created man...". Who is the "us"? Some will argue that this is trinitarian language. God is speaking with himself. Fair enough. Except, ancient Israelites have no context for this interpretation. For this trinitarian language to have been included and copied repeatedly would be unlikely. A more likely interpretation would be for God to be speaking to his divine council, the lesser elohim that he created and serve as his court.
Am I saying that angels also created man? No, I am not. The idea is that God invited his royal court to participate through bearing witness saying "Let us" (plural), and then God proceeded to make man in his (singular) image. This could be comparable to saying to my children, "Let's get some pizza," and then I proceed to order it, I pay for it, I drive the car, even if they may ride along. Really, I got the pizza, but I invited them and included them and they participated with me even though they did not directly do it.
The trinitarian view is great for apologetic arguments, but the divine council view makes more contextual sense with the world view of a biblical author. They Canaanite god, El, had his council of 70 lesser gods. The Hebrews have their own God, Yahweh, the Most High God, and frequently and polemically present him as presiding over a council of lesser elohim that he created. This is seen all throughout the Bible, especially in the prophets, and in Revelation. We in our modern context, however, aren't trained to look for it. God invites the angels to participate and then he proceeds to do the creating.
The same "us" is seen in the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11. The divine council view makes more sense here than God inviting the other persons of the Trinity to go with him down look at what the people had done. And then again we see in Genesis 3:22-24 God is speaking again and says that "the man has become like one of us".
The applicable point for this discussion is that this would show that the angels are also made in God's image. And you can hardly find an account where humans encounter angels that does not demonstrate that they also bear God's glory much more strongly than we do. We do see a human bearing a similar glory when Moses came down from the mountain after meeting with God. If angels also bear God's image, it would follow that they, to should not cover their heads.
So, why does it say women should cover their heads, and especially "because of the angels"? This is most likely a reference Jewish belief regarding Genesis 6:1-4, when angels (the song of God) transgressed the differentiation between realms and manifested to take human wives and have children. In 1 Enoch, God condemns this saying that he created women among men because men are mortal and through children they would effectively continue on. The angels on the other hand were not mortal and so God did not make women among them. So, the head covering could make sense in regards to why women would need a symbol of authority on their head, reminding the angels that women were made for men, not for them.
There are other potential meanings in there also for the earlier version which get into some ancient medical misconceptions, but that is off topic and to much for me to explain here. You can find that in this episode of the Naked Bible Podcast. The subject matter of those verses would stay in the same line with the theme of modesty and sexual fidelity.
Other Contributing Works:
- The Unseen Realm, Michael S. Heiser, 2015
- Reversing Hermon, Michael S. Heiser, 2017
- Angels, Michael S. Heiser, 2018
- Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Azabbim (idols), 1999
- Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, Idol, Idolatry, 1998
- The Bible Project podcast, Tim Mackie, multiple episodes
- The Naked Bible podcast, Michael S. Heiser, multiple episodes
- The Lord of Spirits podcast, Fr. Stephen De Young & Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick, multiple episodes
- 1 Enoch: the Hermeneia Translation, George W. E. Nickelsburg and James C. VanderKam, 2012