Many Christians have problems with wearing "kippot" at worship based on Paul's teachings in (1st Corithians 11:4). But does Paul really teach that men should not wear anything at all on their heads? On the surface,
1Cor.11:4 and
7, in some English translations, seem to indicate that a man should be bareheaded: "Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying, dishonors his head" and "a man ought not to have his head covered" (NASB). If we use these verses to rule out even men's hats and Kippot , we have two problems.
First, this view does not harmonize with what the Bible says about the subject elsewhere. For example, the garments Yahweh commanded priests to wear included turbans for the head (
Ex.28:40), and two times the High Priest was told "do not uncover your head" (
Lev. 10:6;
21:10). In addition, we see King David and his men all praying with covered heads, and the Lord answering their prayer (
2 Sam.15:30f;
17:14). 2
Secondly, the Greek
katakalupto describes something that "hangs down over" the head, which does not sound at all like a kippah or man's hat. Paul is not condemning kippot or hats; he is saying that a man should not wear "a shawl hanging down over his head" (rs.4, Wuest trans.) like a woman. A male should not cover his head "in that manner," (rs.7, Wuest trans.), i.e., like a woman. Paul is simply reinforcing Deut. 22:5: "The woman shall not wear men's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing: for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God." 3
Stern in his commentary writes;"
Wearing something down over his head. This is the literal translation, and it is used here to show that Sha'ul is talking about wearing a veil, not a hat. The usual translation, "with his head covered," obscures this fact, and as a result an issue has arisen in Messianic Judaism that should never have come up at all, namely, whether it is proper for a Messianic Jewish man to wear a kippah ("skullcap" or, in Yiddish, yarmulke) in public worship. Of course it is proper, since objection to
it is based only on a mis-translation of this verse."