• 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"?

FollowingHim

FollowingHim

Administrator
Staff member
Real Person
Male
This is something that is commonly stated as a fact, but a recent discussion has shown it is not universally accepted as such. I think this would be profitable to tease out. To briefly summarise the points made in that discussion:
steve said:
Expanding this, Yah’s pattern/plan was for every woman to be covered, which is impossible without polygyny.
Click to expand...
Bartato said:
Please show where the Bible says it is Yah's pattern/plan for every woman to be covered. I'm not saying it isn't, I just ask that you prove this assertion.
Click to expand...
At this point, one problem may be that the word "covered" is undefined, and people may be talking at cross purposes as a result.

Question 1: What does the word "covering" mean, in the statement "every woman needs a covering"? What IS this covering?

Question 2: Does that word (or an equivalent) appear in scripture directly, or is this a theological term introduced later to explain a scriptural concept?

The previous conversation continued essentially using "covering" and "marriage" interchangeably:
Communication said:
I do not believe single women should be told they need a covering.
Click to expand...
NickF said:
1 Timothy 5:14-15 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. 15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.

Titus 2:4-5 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
Click to expand...
frederick said:
1 Cor. 7:2; Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

These are commands for each man and each woman, not good ideas for people to decide on.
Click to expand...
frederick said:
The reason for the command is given in the text; Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. If a person is not tempted by immorality, there is no need to have a spouse.
Click to expand...
Communication said:
Fair enough, but since you brought up this verse to support another’s refutation of my comment [that we should not teach that women need to be covered] and you are acknowledging the conditional within that scripture, then maybe we can teach that not all women need to be covered/married.

I don’t know that this is correct, but perhaps telling women who are tempted by immorality that they should marry is correct… but: it would be wrong then to convey command to marry to those who are not tempted by immorality?
Click to expand...
Question 3: Are all women required to be covered (i.e. is it sinful for them not to be)? Or is it just advisable?

Question 4: Are all men required to give covering to at least one woman?
 
I would push the questioning even further. Where in scripture is “covering” tied to ether husbands or fathers? I think most individuals of both sexes should be married, I’m just not sure what the whole theological underpinning is for “covering” as we frequently use the word.

Just to comply with the parameters of the conversation.

Question 1: I don’t have a great understanding of what it is. As far as I know it’s only talked about in 1 Corinthians 11. And it’s pretty literal there. I’m sure there’s places I’m missing though.

Question 2: Covering appears to be a term applied extra- Biblically to describe a principle much Trinity, rapture and patriarch.

Question 3: Clearly not, older widows are expressly exempted from marrying.

Question 4: Clearly not, as many men in scripture demonstrate; most especially John the Baptist, Our Lord and Paul the Apostle.
 
The Revolting Man said:
I would push the questioning even further. Where in scripture is “covering” tied to ether husbands or fathers? I think most individuals of both sexes should be married, I’m just not sure what the whole theological underpinning is for “covering” as we frequently use the word.

Just to comply with the parameters of the conversation.

Question 1: I don’t have a great understanding of what it is. As far as I know it’s only talked about in 1 Corinthians 11. And it’s pretty literal there. I’m sure there’s places I’m missing though.

Question 2: Covering appears to be a term applied extra- Biblically to describe a principle much Trinity, rapture and patriarch.

Question 3: Clearly not, older widows are expressly exempted from marrying.

Question 4: Clearly not, as many men in scripture demonstrate; most especially John the Baptist, Our Lord and Paul the Apostle.
Click to expand...
Not to split hairs, but my understanding is that the word rapture comes from the Latin translation of the Greek word harpázō (Strong's 726).

It is used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, but translated differently (and may not mean precisely what our Dispensational brethren think).

Therefore the word "rapture" is used in the Bible.
 
Working on the response, I welcome any other questions and statements in the meantime. Let’s make it juicy.
 
A covering is headship, protection and providence. Authority over her.
Too busy to find all the scripture references right now but essentially, woman was not made to be apart and independent of a man. She was made for a man. To be a fitted helper to a man. From Genesis through the NT we have examples of women who God has upheld as examples, they were wives who obeyed God and helped their man succeed.

The west is a prime example of the delusion of feminism. Just look at the Bear Grylls Island survival show season 2 Men Vs Women.

Nature itself teaches us that it's absurd for a group of women to go about life with no husband. They lack direction, wisdom, and the ability to consistently get necessary things done without a man leading the way. A flock of chickens with no rooster is an utter mess. A herd of goats with no buck is a riotous chaotic mess. A herd of cattle with no bull is insane.
 
Here is my understanding.

The Father is "The Covering/House Roof/Lordship" of his Daughters as well as "The Deed Holder" and This is why The Father gives away His Daughters.
Once She is Married The Deed is given to her husband in a Bill of Sales/Marriage Certificate and she takes her Husbands last name.

This is a good topic.
 
Bartato said:
Not to split hairs, but my understanding is that the word rapture comes from the Latin translation of the Greek word harpázō (Strong's 726).

It is used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, but translated differently (and may not mean precisely what our Dispensational brethren think).

Therefore the word "rapture" is used in the Bible.
Click to expand...
That’s holding on by a fingernail!
 
NickF said:
A covering is headship, protection and providence. Authority over her.
Too busy to find all the scripture references right now but essentially, woman was not made to be apart and independent of a man. She was made for a man. To be a fitted helper to a man. From Genesis through the NT we have examples of women who God has upheld as examples, they were wives who obeyed God and helped their man succeed.

The west is a prime example of the delusion of feminism. Just look at the Bear Grylls Island survival show season 2 Men Vs Women.

Nature itself teaches us that it's absurd for a group of women to go about life with no husband. They lack direction, wisdom, and the ability to consistently get necessary things done without a man leading the way. A flock of chickens with no rooster is an utter mess. A herd of goats with no buck is a riotous chaotic mess. A herd of cattle with no bull is insane.
Click to expand...
There’s not one sentence in this post I disagree with. Woman was created for man, without a man the question can be asked, “What is her purpose?” No offense single ladies, there is a nuanced answer to that question.

But the question @FollowingHim is asking, if I may be allowed to paraphrase and he’ll correct me if I’m wrong, what is the Biblical definition and explanation of “covering”?

We use the term a lot and it’s become a shorthand for a whole host ideas that amongst ourselves we don’t have to debate or elaborate on, they’re taken as axiomatic. But how do we explain covering to an outsider and how do we counter their objections?
 
NickF said:
A herd of cattle with no bull is insane.
Click to expand...
We combined 3 herds of cattle today, then put out the bull. When we combined the cattle, the cows from different herds started butting heads to establish their dominance hierarchy (which is completely normal). But what I found interesting was as soon as we put the bull in, whenever two cows started their contest of strength, he would run over and break them up. An interesting herd dynamic.
The Revolting Man said:
Question 1: I don’t have a great understanding of what it is. As far as I know it’s only talked about in 1 Corinthians 11. And it’s pretty literal there. I’m sure there’s places I’m missing though.
Click to expand...
1 Corinthians 11 is talking about a literal covering. That covering is obviously symbolic of authority, but doesn't teach us much theology about that authority, nor does it show that the authority itself should be called a "covering".
The Revolting Man said:
Question 2: Covering appears to be a term applied extra- Biblically to describe a principle much Trinity, rapture and patriarch.
Click to expand...
So I agree - as far as I can see the term is applied extraBiblically. That of course doesn't mean it's wrong.
NickF said:
A covering is headship, protection and providence. Authority over her.
Too busy to find all the scripture references right now but essentially, woman was not made to be apart and independent of a man. She was made for a man. To be a fitted helper to a man.
Click to expand...
That is most certainly the "ideal" model. It is what we should be recommending for every woman.

But can we take it so far as to say that all women NEED a covering, and to not have one is rebellious and potentially even sinful? That is where people seem to take it to sometimes, and this may be going too far.
The Revolting Man said:
Question 3: Clearly not, older widows are expressly exempted from marrying.

Question 4: Clearly not, as many men in scripture demonstrate; most especially John the Baptist, Our Lord and Paul the Apostle.
Click to expand...
 
In addition to getting a good grasp as to the definition of “covering” I think we may also need to work somewhat on defining women. There is an important reason for this: If our definition includes incorrectly characteristics which we later cite as the justification for the requirement to have “covering” then we will add to the law (bad!). I mean, women certainly have distinct physical characteristics, but it seems some here would put forward that, even with no physical information, we could still use the following definition to make a correct classification:
Women -- the gender that lacks discernment, has no independent function that has any meaningfulness, and when operating in a homogenous group manifest as an utter mess.

To put forward an alternative, let me get poetic, or playwright-ty:
Man: Wife, you are capable and strong! I have full confidence in you. You are a provider of love and discipline for our children, who rise up and call you blessed. You also provide food for us and for our servants. You make trades in a challenging marketplace and the profit you gain is a testament to your skill and discernment. Your decisiveness and leadership skills remind me of Barbara, the woman of Lappidoth. [some Song of Songs stuff that has been censored]. All these things, and yet you endeavor to submit to me in all things, even when I seem to be lacking discernment, when my business records a string of losses, or when I exhibit my characteristic bluntness. Why?
Woman: I submit to the Most High, who has anointed you as my lord*.
*"lord" as authority
So I think here there are two distinct conceptions of women presented to begin this thread. We have to ask ourselves if either one has an advantage in better representing God’s conception of the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve, both as they are currently manifested, and also as they are perfectly conceived in the mind of God.

tl;dr Unlike say, physical strength, discernment, et al, might not be a highly gender-informed characteristic and considering it as such may lead to poorly reasoned conclusions.
 
FollowingHim said:
We combined 3 herds of cattle today, then put out the bull. When we combined the cattle, the cows from different herds started butting heads to establish their dominance hierarchy (which is completely normal). But what I found interesting was as soon as we put the bull in, whenever two cows started their contest of strength, he would run over and break them up. An interesting herd dynamic.
Click to expand...
Interesting that bull behaves same as any man would. Nobody likes when his ladies are fighting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top