• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Do all women need a "covering"? And what is a "covering"?

In this case we are talking of whether a head covering is required or not required. If the law does require it then we need 2 or 3 witnesses to call it a sin.

Deuteronomy 19
15¶'One witness doth not rise against a man for any iniquity, and for any sin, in any sin which he sinneth; by the mouth of two witnesses, or by the mouth of three witnesses, is a thing established.

2nd Corinthians (Paul is quoting Deuteronomy)
1¶This third time do I come unto you; on the mouth of two witnesses or three shall every saying be established;

Deuteronomy 17. No death penalty is brought without 2 or 3 witnesses either

6By the mouth of two witnesses or of three witnesses is he who is dead put to death; he is not put to death by the mouth of one witness;


Heaven and earth are the witnesses of the Torah being upheld. Yeshua also answers the pharisees here in John.

John 8
13¶The Pharisees, therefore, said to him, 'Thou of thyself dost testify, thy testimony is not true;'

14¶Jesus answered and said to them, 'And if I testify of myself -- my testimony is true, because I have known whence I came, and whither I go, and ye -- ye have not known whence I come, or whither I go.

15'Ye according to the flesh do judge; I do not judge any one,

16and even if I do judge my judgment is true, because I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent me;

17and also in your law it hath been written, that the testimony of two men are true;

18I am one who is testifying of myself, and the Father who sent me doth testify of me.'



The scripture requires 2 or 3 witnesses before someone is guilty. If it is a sin to not cover your hair then that matter should be established by 2 or 3 witnesses. If it's not a sin, then each man can require and not require at his own choosing.
It requires at least two witness to convict someone of breaking an established law. There’s nothing any number of witnesses can do to make something that doesn’t violate the law a sin.

God only has to speak once in His Word. It’s men that need witnesses if they’re going to prosecute those Laws.

Head covering is not a command. It was a tradition that Paul affirmed by saying it was shameful for a woman to pray or prophesy uncovered. So even if it’s not a law it still carries a lot of weight. It’s not a sin for a woman to pray or prophesy uncovered but it is shameful.
 
Last edited:
It requires at least two witness to convict someone of breaking an established law. There’s nothing any number of witnesses can do to make something that doesn’t violate the law a sin.

God only has to speak once in His Word. It’s men that need witnesses if they’re going to prosecute those Laws.

Head covering is not a command. It was a tradition that Paul affirmed by saying it was shameful for a woman to pray or prophesy uncovered. So even if it’s not a law it still carries a lot of weight. It’s not a sin for a woman to pray or prophesy uncovered but it is shameful.
100% agree with this right here!

A woman covering her head while praying or prophesying demonstrates to the heavenly realm that she honors her husband. And by honoring her husband, she honors the Lord. It’s a deference and honor issue. At least that’s my newish conclusion and understanding from recent study on the matter.

It relates to the titular question in that the woman is showing she is under authority. It’s quite literally a badge of honor to cover her head.
 
Last edited:
It requires at least two witness to convict someone of breaking an established law. There’s nothing any number of witnesses can do to make something that doesn’t violate the law a sin.

God only has to speak once in His Word. It’s men that need witnesses if they’re going to prosecute those Laws.

Head covering is not a command. It was a tradition that Paul affirmed by saying it was shameful for a woman to pray or prophesy uncovered. So even if it’s not a law it still carries a lot of weight. It’s not a sin for a woman to pray or prophesy uncovered but it is shameful.
Make sure to put the piece of cloth on your wife's head because of the angels too! I on the other hand will allow my power, my authority to be over my wives head. Oh and also make you never have long hair either, that might cover your head too much and make you shameful. Make sure you never take a nazarite vow, because then you can't pray or prophesy without it being shameful.
 
It requires at least two witness to convict someone of breaking an established law. There’s nothing any number of witnesses can do to make something that doesn’t violate the law a sin.

God only has to speak once in His Word. It’s men that need witnesses if they’re going to prosecute those Laws.

Head covering is not a command. It was a tradition that Paul affirmed by saying it was shameful for a woman to pray or prophesy uncovered. So even if it’s not a law it still carries a lot of weight. It’s not a sin for a woman to pray or prophesy uncovered but it is shameful.
What are your historical references to show it was a tradition?
 
When a God.inspired apostle says it's an ordinance then it is
Only if some later 'twister' didn't mis- translate what was originally Written.

The clear, repeated prohibition is against "adding to," or "subtracting from" His Written Word. As originally Written.

And if something is an 'ordinance' (the real word is 'chuq') then it should be clear FROM His Word where it is being cited. Otherwise, at best it's opinion.
 
The first rendering is YLT, the second is NASB95


4Every man praying or prophesying, having the head covered, doth dishonour his head,


4Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.


In the NASB rendering the word something is added. It does not exist.


5and every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, doth dishonour her own head, for it is one and the same thing with her being shaven,


5But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman fnwhose head is shaved.




6for if a woman is not covered -- then let her be shorn, and if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven -- let her be covered;


6For if a woman does not cover fnher head, let her also fnhave her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to fnhave her hair cut off or fnher head shaved, let her cover fnher head.


In NASB verse 6 the word head does not appear. YLT renders it way more accurately.


7for a man, indeed, ought not to cover the head, being the image and glory of God, and a woman is the glory of a man,


7For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.


8for a man is not of a woman, but a woman is of a man,


8For man fndoes not originate from woman, but woman from man;

9for a man also was not created because of the woman, but a woman because of the man;


9for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.


10because of this the woman ought to have a token of authority upon the head, because of the messengers;


10Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.


The word symbol or token does not exist. Even YLT misses it here. The Reading should be that the woman ought to have power/authority over the head.


11but neither is a man apart from a woman, nor a woman apart from a man, in the Lord,


11However, in the Lord, neither is woman fnindependent of man, nor is man fnindependent of woman.


12for as the woman is of the man, so also the man is through the woman, and the all things are of God.


12For as the woman fnoriginates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things fnoriginate from God.


13¶In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God?


13Judge fnfor yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?


Here again we have scholars adding the word head in the NASB rendering.


14doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him?


14Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,


15and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;


15but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.


I guess her hair isn't a covering to most people? Must be hard to read this verse or something?


16and if any one doth think to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the assemblies of God.


16But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no fnother practice, nor have the churches of God.


I like this part that if anyone in inclined to be contentious, we have no such fellowship with them. To me it says, if a woman refuses to follow these instructions of being covered, then have no fellowship. Covered=authority. Refer to verse 3 for context. All questions refer to verse 3 for context.


The added text, the changes in the renderings, push to make the covering a piece of cloth that is supported NOWHERE else in scripture. What is supported is a covering, and authority structure.


Why does it matter? Here is the difference.

If it's a piece if cloth then a woman without authority over her, widow or woman out of her fathers house, ect, may pray and prophesy without any issue in the Assembly. Assuming she puts her cloth on first


If it's authority, then all women must be subjected to a man who will be praying or prophesying. They will all be protected by the authority structure that Yah put in place. Numbers 5 is one example.


You guys can keep your golden cow if you like, but if you used the same zeal and consistency for this as you do poly, you would find very quickly how you are grasping at straws.
 
Poor little old God just wasn't able to get His Word in the hands of common ordinary dust like me.
I can't help but think the time will come when (and it may be close!) lotsa such folk:
"shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit." (Jer. 16:19. Even the KJV is clear here... ;) )

Why, I suspect some might even begin to realize there's a connection between "covering" and patriarchal, actual Scriptural, 'marriage'.
 
Last edited:
1 Corinthians 11 is a very confusing passage and I am grateful that we have Eph. 5 to turn to when addressing God's established hierarchy. For this topic though, I think the following article is very relevant. I find it very convincing.

According to the article 1 Cor. 11:10 should read: 10. Therefore the woman is morally obligated to have authority on her head, because of the angels.

The article does not address specifically if that means women must have a covering or if it only applies to married women. If his translation is correct, I think it means wives must be under their husband's authority and single women should be willing to be under a husband's authority. Especially in the context provided in the article about the Lesbian women who shaved their heads in rebellion of their God given roles.

All of that to say, if the author's conclusions about 1 Cor. 11 are correct, and I currently believe he is, then covering is simply a descriptive term meaning "under authority" and it is a biblical term. Women are required to be willing to be under the authority of a husband, but I don't think singleness in and of itself is a violation of that principle. The reason for not being covered is important there. I don't see any command that men must ensure all women are covered or have authority over them. This is further supported by Jesus' statement regarding eunuchs. Singleness is an acceptable way to live for a select few.


Women aren't eunuchs though, food for thought.
 
As @James Pease points out, the context of 1 Cor 11 is authority structure. The headcovering is a nice traditional, but not required, symbol of the woman being under the authority of a man, be it father or husband. I like when @KellyR wears a headcovering when she is out without me, but in my house, I don't require it either in the home or when we are out together.

That said, I do find the especially colorful pashminas to be very feminine and sexy...
 
As @James Pease points out, the context of 1 Cor 11 is authority structure. The headcovering is a nice traditional, but not required, symbol of the woman being under the authority of a man, be it father or husband. I like when @KellyR wears a headcovering when she is out without me, but in my house, I don't require it either in the home or when we are out together.

That said, I do find the especially colorful pashminas to be very feminine and sexy...
When do you find that the tradition first occurred, historically that is. Through my study it points to the 1500s. Do you have any other resources?
 
When do you find that the tradition first occurred, historically that is. Through my study it points to the 1500s. Do you have any other resources?
I haven't really tried to trace the tradition. Might be a good idea to read some of Josephus' descriptions of Jewish life and dress in the Second Temple period....
 
I thought women are supposed to be silent in the assembly….🤔
1st Corinthians 14

34¶Your women in the assemblies let them be silent, for it hath not been permitted to them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith;

35and if they wish to learn anything, at home their own husbands let them question, for it is a shame to women to speak in an assembly.

36¶From you did the word of God come forth? or to you alone did it come?

The context I understand is that they are not to be disorderly, asking questions. They are to be subject as the law says. Where is the law that says they can't speak in the assembly? Could this be addressing disorderly women who should be asking the questions they have at home?

Its probably gonna be tough for the older women to teach the younger in silence. Maybe they only teach when no assembling is occuring?

Another thought, what is the assembly? If someone comes over to you house for a bible study or fellowship are you not allowed to talk? Is that the assembly?

1st Corinthians 11 is based on the context of the assembly to my understanding. The end of 11 addresses Yahweh's supper being done orderly in the Assembly.
 
Paul references traditions. Then follows with the 14 verse-long “covering” conversation. Just seems like that would be what he’s referencing. The practice of headcovering. ???
 
Back
Top