• 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"?

PeteR said:
So, @James Pease while I don't disagree with your verses, i'll be contrarian. If the priests represent the brides of Messiah, should they not be covered to approach?
Click to expand...
Help me make the connection why priests represent the bride but the rest of the tribes dont
The Revolting Man said:
Okay, I sense some spill over from other conversations you’ve had on this topic. This thing went from zero to a hundred fast. Normally I’m all about it but in this case I want to dial it back a bit. This is actually a vital topic and you’re muddling up your logic a bit.

You assert that Paul can’t be talking in 1 Corinthians 11 about a physical covering. Your claim is that that makes no sense. Your main argument is that the priesthood did cover their heads during the commission of their duties and that some imagery used in prophesies about the time after Christ’s return depict men worshiping God with their heads covered.

Those are good points. I concede them. Levite men should cover their heads when they perform their temple duties. Any of you reading this who fall into that category disregard everything else I’m about to say.

Now none of us know exactly what things will look like after the bridegroom comes. The only thing we know for sure is that nothing we can imagine will do it justice. Let’s set that aside. Lyrical imagery to demonstrate a point is not the same thing as commands which are not the same things as teachings.

1 Corinthians 11 has to be talking about a physical covering though and I’ll show you why. Now that doesn’t mean it only talks about a physical covering. We know that what is bound in Heaven is loosed on earth and vice versa. Physical realities have spiritual significance. Now why is Paul talking about a physical covering? Read on dear sir, read on.

And the answer is actually quite simple. If you think that the covering is not a physical thing then we need to be advocating for every uncovered woman to be bald.

Yes, Paul says let them be covered or shorn. If being covered means having a husband then all single women need to shave their heads. If it means being covered by a father or a husband then elderly widows and orphaned single women need to shave their heads.

You accuse me of being illogical but if you’re correct then you are an overly permissive libertine. You aren’t teaching women the truths they need to hear.

Now it’s entirety possibly I misunderstand Paul’s writings and as Peter says am destroying my soul as an unstable and untaught man. That’s a hard accusation to level at someone who is taking the words at their most simple and obvious meaning but I’ll take the criticism and see if it applies and what steps I should take to remedy the situation.

However you now have to stop being a false teacher. You have to start teaching he fullness of Paul’s instruction. Elderly widows and single orphaned women must be bald. If you don’t affirm this truth then you must join me in the Deatroyed By Being Unstable and Unlearned Penalty Box.
Click to expand...
I truly dont think you are that unstable lol and destroying your soul. What I was pointing out is how many people misunderstand Paul. You know how bad it is. That was not my accusation, if it came across that way I apologize.

Now as for spillover, I haven't had many conversations about this, just a handful. The spill over happens for me when someone says that is a requirement to not be shameful. You stated that a woman who doesn't wear a cloth is shameful and that a man who wears a cloth while praying or prophesying is shameful. That is teaching the doctrine of men. The Torah, as I pointed out shows that the scripture doesn't support your view.

As for continuing the logic all the way through, yes sir I believe a woman who isn't willing to be covered ought to be shorn. If the woman finds it shameful to be shorn, I believe she should seek a covering or if she's not ashamed then go around bald. The woman ought to have authority over her head.

In my opinion, the older widows receive a covering from the elders per the writings in Timothy.

Btw, I will mention once more, I have no quarrel with a man who has his women cover. But if you say that it's shameful to not cover and if you say that's it's shameful for a man to wear a head covering, then I will make you prove it by the scriptures.
 
The Revolting Man said:
Okay, I sense some spill over from other conversations you’ve had on this topic. This thing went from zero to a hundred fast. Normally I’m all about it but in this case I want to dial it back a bit. This is actually a vital topic and you’re muddling up your logic a bit.

You assert that Paul can’t be talking in 1 Corinthians 11 about a physical covering. Your claim is that that makes no sense. Your main argument is that the priesthood did cover their heads during the commission of their duties and that some imagery used in prophesies about the time after Christ’s return depict men worshiping God with their heads covered.

Those are good points. I concede them. Levite men should cover their heads when they perform their temple duties. Any of you reading this who fall into that category disregard everything else I’m about to say.

Now none of us know exactly what things will look like after the bridegroom comes. The only thing we know for sure is that nothing we can imagine will do it justice. Let’s set that aside. Lyrical imagery to demonstrate a point is not the same thing as commands which are not the same things as teachings.

1 Corinthians 11 has to be talking about a physical covering though and I’ll show you why. Now that doesn’t mean it only talks about a physical covering. We know that what is bound in Heaven is loosed on earth and vice versa. Physical realities have spiritual significance. Now why is Paul talking about a physical covering? Read on dear sir, read on.

And the answer is actually quite simple. If you think that the covering is not a physical thing then we need to be advocating for every uncovered woman to be bald.

Yes, Paul says let them be covered or shorn. If being covered means having a husband then all single women need to shave their heads. If it means being covered by a father or a husband then elderly widows and orphaned single women need to shave their heads.

You accuse me of being illogical but if you’re correct then you are an overly permissive libertine. You aren’t teaching women the truths they need to hear.

Now it’s entirety possibly I misunderstand Paul’s writings and as Peter says am destroying my soul as an unstable and untaught man. That’s a hard accusation to level at someone who is taking the words at their most simple and obvious meaning but I’ll take the criticism and see if it applies and what steps I should take to remedy the situation.

However you now have to stop being a false teacher. You have to start teaching he fullness of Paul’s instruction. Elderly widows and single orphaned women must be bald. If you don’t affirm this truth then you must join me in the Deatroyed By Being Unstable and Unlearned Penalty Box.
Click to expand...
Also to clarify why I hold my view of this being praying and prophesying in the Assembly, is that I would not go and shave every woman who doesn't have a authority head. But a woman who wants to pray and prophesy without and authority head i believe should be shaved. I forgot to clarify that in my previous comment.
 
James Pease said:
@The Revolting Man
Also to apply your logic consistently, if a woman doesn't wear a piece of cloth she needs to be shaved or go around bald.
Click to expand...
Let's apply your logic consistently. First off let's stop using the juvenile tactic of diminishing the antithesis. Deriding a "piece of cloth" could just as easily apply to tzitzi, pieces of cloth you do value greatly. Clearly pieces of cloth can have significance. Scoffing at "pieces of cloth" is not an argument.

But we've only been talking about one half of this passage, what it means for women. Let's talk about what it means for men.

Your contention is that "covering" in 1 Corinthians 11 is about the spiritual covering a man provides a woman; either as husband or father. But the exact same term is used for what men aren't allowed to have without being shameful. What is that then? What is that a man can do, that wouldn't be shameful when he wasn't praying or prophesying, that a woman could do that wouldn't be shameful when she wasn't praying or prophesying? In this instance it has to work both ways. What's good for the goose when she's not praying or prophesying has to be good for the gander when he's not praying or prophesying.

Is it okay for a man to have the spiritual covering of another man when he's not praying or prophesying? I don't think so and neither do you. So in what way can a man be covered spiritually by another man?

I get that applying this passage as spiritual covering is very appealing to a patriarchal minded man. It allows us to teach compulsory marriage. That in turn broadens the availability of wives; win-win as far as I'm concerned. But that's not what the passage says.

And while we're at it you've made a couple of other statements that need to get called out. Women can not speak in the assembly. Full stop. The assembly has nothing to do with this passage and it can't be shoehorned into it. And what is this foolishness about elders being covering for elderly widows? The only thing the elders are allowed to do with widows is to determine if they are eligible for charity. There is nowhere in scripture where you can come up with a headship by committee arrangement. Let's keep this discussion focused on the text and not ancillary speculation that would be necessary to resolve the issues that would arise if you were correct, which thankfully you are not.

This covering has to be something that both men and women can undertake without shame in certain circumstances, male headship does not fit that bill. It is never appropriate for men to be covered by men. So what is it then?
 
The Revolting Man said:
Let's apply your logic consistently. First off let's stop using the juvenile tactic of diminishing the antithesis. Deriding a "piece of cloth" could just as easily apply to tzitzi, pieces of cloth you do value greatly. Clearly pieces of cloth can have significance. Scoffing at "pieces of cloth" is not an argument.

But we've only been talking about one half of this passage, what it means for women. Let's talk about what it means for men.

Your contention is that "covering" in 1 Corinthians 11 is about the spiritual covering a man provides a woman; either as husband or father. But the exact same term is used for what men aren't allowed to have without being shameful. What is that then? What is that a man can do, that wouldn't be shameful when he wasn't praying or prophesying, that a woman could do that wouldn't be shameful when she wasn't praying or prophesying? In this instance it has to work both ways. What's good for the goose when she's not praying or prophesying has to be good for the gander when he's not praying or prophesying.

Is it okay for a man to have the spiritual covering of another man when he's not praying or prophesying? I don't think so and neither do you. So in what way can a man be covered spiritually by another man?

I get that applying this passage as spiritual covering is very appealing to a patriarchal minded man. It allows us to teach compulsory marriage. That in turn broadens the availability of wives; win-win as far as I'm concerned. But that's not what the passage says.

And while we're at it you've made a couple of other statements that need to get called out. Women can not speak in the assembly. Full stop. The assembly has nothing to do with this passage and it can't be shoehorned into it. And what is this foolishness about elders being covering for elderly widows? The only thing the elders are allowed to do with widows is to determine if they are eligible for charity. There is nowhere in scripture where you can come up with a headship by committee arrangement. Let's keep this discussion focused on the text and not ancillary speculation that would be necessary to resolve the issues that would arise if you were correct, which thankfully you are not.

This covering has to be something that both men and women can undertake without shame in certain circumstances, male headship does not fit that bill. It is never appropriate for men to be covered by men. So what is it then?
Click to expand...
For the older widows I just shared my opinion.

Im perfectly willing to discuss women speaking in the assembly too. That involves defining the assembly, defining speaking, and defining when this Law was put in place.

Can you lay out your beliefs of 1 Corinthians 11 so we can understand.

Does a woman only need to wear a head covering when praying and prophesying? If not are you applying this to the man, that he must never wear a head covering.

Does a man dishonor his head by having a head covering on while praying and prophesying?

Is a woman's hair a covering for her?

Does the Torah support your view? Or did Paul write new commands concerning the assembly that we are to treat as commandments?
 
windblown said:
That was the word used in vs 16 not vs 2’s “traditions.”
Click to expand...
Sorry I misunderstood. That is an interesting word tradition/ordinance. I can see it going either way

  1. giving up, giving over
    1. the act of giving up
    2. the surrender of cities
  2. a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.
    1. objectively, that which is delivered, the substance of a teaching
    2. of the body of precepts, esp. ritual, which in the opinion of the later Jews were orally delivered by Moses and orally transmitted in unbroken succession to subsequent generations, which precepts, both illustrating and expanding the written law, as they did were to be obeyed with equal reverence
 
NickF said:
And can't we now approach boldly? To go back, wouldn't that be shameful and a reproach of the finished work of Christ? He is our great High Priest, we do not need to presume to do His job for us. He is our intercessor. He is our covering now. The Aaronic priesthood's purpose has been fulfilled (not done away with, but fulfilled).

Hebrews 4
14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Click to expand...
Multiple evidences for the priests to continue doing their jobs all the way through the millennium. In Acts, Paul participates in Nazarite vows and sacrifices, Hebrews 8:4 clearly states the priests were functioning lawfully at that time, and Ez. 43-44 articulate the priests serving before the Prince and offering fat and blood... So, while I agree that a fulfillment has happened, they still function in a particular role and must obey particular rules, headcovering being part of their 'uniform.'

https://waterfromthrock.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/sacrifices-in-the-mellinial-kingdom/ (Let's not go off topic, but this is a primer...)
 
Also here is something I need to clear up of my belief that I have mis spoke about. I have went over this many times and in the riff raff I defaulted to a previous view that I cannot hold to.

Here is my beliefs clearly stated.


A woman should be covered at all times, if she is uncovered while praying or prophesying she dishonors her head.

A man should be uncovered at all times. If he prays covered, then he dishonors his head.

I resend my statement about just being covered while praying or prophesying and offer this one in its place.

A woman should be under authority at all times. When she is not under authority during praying and prophesying she dishonors her own head.
This wraps up my thoughts without separating them.

Sorry for the confusion.
 
James Pease said:
Can you lay out your beliefs of 1 Corinthians 11 so we can understand.
Click to expand...
Of course but this doesn't only go one way young man. You've been challenged to provide a consistent explanation for how your beliefs on the passage could apply to both men and women. You need to provide an answer. I know you're stalling because you can't but you're an honest and intelligent young man and you're not going to be able to duck the question forever. There is an irreconcilable contradiction in your interpretation. My simple, face value explanation of the passage does not have that weakness.

My belief is simple. Paul states that there is a tradition that women should physically cover their head when praying or prophesying and that men shouldn't. This has nothing to do with the assembly. This is the simplest reading of the passage and requires no intellectual contortions to arrive at.
James Pease said:
Does a woman only need to wear a head covering when praying and prophesying? If not are you applying this to the man, that he must never wear a head covering.
Click to expand...
Yes, a woman need only cover when praying or prophesying. I go a few steps further in my house but that's a personal choice. It is not clear to me that a man can never wear a head covering. I assume you mean because we're told to pray without ceasing that then a man should always be in prayer. It's an interesting question but I don't see why a head covering can't be removed for prayer or the prayer postponed until it can be removed. I imagine that if we look in to the phrase "without ceasing" we will find that it does not mean every second of every minute of every day.
James Pease said:
Does a man dishonor his head by having a head covering on while praying and prophesying?
Click to expand...
Yes. I've stated that multiple times. How is that even a question now unless you want to try and circle back to the High Priest argument? You are not the High Priest, you do not do everything the High Priest does. You are not a Levite. You do not do everything a Levite does.
James Pease said:
Is a woman's hair a covering for her?
Click to expand...
No, not in this case. If the teaching was that a woman should have hair or be shorn it would of course be ridiculous. "That woman doesn't have hair! Shave it off!" This is why I think you have baggage with this issue. You clearly haven't spent time with this passage in an attempt to understand it's action items. Your interest has been to simply delegitimize it. You are refusing to check your preconceived notions.

James Pease said:
Does the Torah support your view? Or did Paul write new commands concerning the assembly that we are to treat as commandments?
Click to expand...
This is a much larger argument. What do you mean by Torah? I assert that Paul's writings are Torah. And again, I've been explicit that this passage is not a command. There's no way to make it a command. You trying to roll my arguments back over to something easier for you to argue against is dishonest and frankly beneath you. Very few of Jesus' teachings were commands either.

Really what you mean to ask is, does anything Moses delivered at Sinai support my interpretation. Good question and I'd turn it back on you. Does anything Moses delivered at Sinai support your interpretation? I'm not aware of it if it does. Is there a command at Sinai that says a woman must be covered by a man at all times? And if there's not will you rescind the ridiculous assertion? Meanwhile, that's not a problem to me. A whole raft of things were added to our Faith away from Sinai, including all of the books of the Bible, the prophecies of Messiah, the Psalms, histories, Proverbs and all of the Prophets. You don't question any of those things and yet most of them happened hundreds of years removed from Sinai. If no scripture is valid unless it was referenced at Sinai then very little of scripture is valid. Do you accept Baptism? The Holy Spirit? The Second Coming? The Crucifixion? The New Jerusalem? None of these things were promulgated at Sinai.

So again, how does your interpretation apply to men and women at the same time? All of these other issues are distractions to mask this irreconcilable contradiction in an idea that really doesn't live up to your normal intellectual rigor. En garde.
 
Last edited:
The Revolting Man said:
Of course but this doesn't only go one way young man. You've been challenged to provide a consistent explanation for how your beliefs on the passage could apple to both men and women. You need to provide an answer. I know you're stalling because you can't but you're an honest and intelligent young man and you're not going to be able to duck the question for ever. There is an irreconcilable contradiction in your interpretation. My simple, face value explanation of the passage does not have the weakness.

My belief is simple. Paul states that there is a tradition that women should physically cover their head when praying or prophesying and that men shouldn't. This has nothing to do with the assembly. This is the simplest reading of the passage and requires no intellectual contortions to arrive at.

Yes, a woman need only cover when praying and prophesying. I go a few steps further in my house but that's a personal choice. It is not clear to me that a man can never wear a head covering. I assume you mean because we're told to pray without ceasing that then a man should always be in prayer. It's an interesting question but I don't see why a head covering can't be removed for prayer or the prayer postponed until it can be removed. I imagine that if we look in to the phrase "without ceasing" we will find that it does not mean every second of every minute of every day.

Yes. I've stated that multiple times. How is that even a question now unless you want to try and circle back to the High Priest argument?

No, not in this case. If the teaching was that a woman should have hair or be shorn it would of course be ridiculous. "That woman doesn't have hair! Shave it off!" This is why I think you have baggage with this issue. You clearly haven't spent time with this passage in an attempt to understand it's action items. Your interest has been to simply delegitimize it. You are refusing to check your preconceived notions.


This is a much larger argument. What do you mean by Torah? I assert that Paul's writings are Torah, or instructions. And again, you're being inconsistent. You're wanting to keep the assembly in this thing for some reason. You can't. It's not in there. I defy you to show me why 1 Corinthians 11 would only apply in the assembly. And again, I've been explicit that this passage is not a command. There's no way to make it a command. You trying to roll my arguments back over to something easier for you to argue against is dishonest and frankly beneath you. We need the New Testament. It was inspired, written and delivered to us for a purpose. It is not a lesser document or somehow optional. It carries the same weight as the Old Testament even if does have slightly different purposes. Remember, some commands were fulfilled. We haven't set foot inside the Temple since 140 A.D. There hasn't been a valid sacrifice made since at least then but most likely since A.D. 70 and possibly not since before Christ. Remember the high priesthood had been corrupted some time around Maccabees.

Really what you mean is does anything Moses delivered at Sinai support my interpretation. Good question and I'd turn it back on you. Does anything Moses delivered at Sinai support your interpretation? I'm not aware of it if it does. And that's not a problem to me. A whole raft of things were added to our Faith away from Sinai, including all of the books of the Bible, the prophecies of Messiah, the Psalms, histories, Proverbs and all of the Prophets. You don't question any of those things and yet most of them happened hundreds of years removed from Sinai. If no scripture is valid unless it was referenced at Sinai then very little of scripture is valid.

So again, how does your interpretation apply to men and women at the same time? All of these other issues are distractions to mask this irreconcilable contradiction in an idea that really doesn't live up to your normal intellectual rigor. En garde.
Click to expand...
I think i was writing my response above while you were replying^

I think we are misunderstanding each other quite a bit. I truly don't care whether Im right or wrong. I care that doctrines of men are not taught as commandments. That is all. If you can lay out your questions one more time for me I will address them in the best way i can
 
James Pease said:
Also here is something I need to clear up of my belief that I have mis spoke about. I have went over this many times and in the riff raff I defaulted to a previous view that I cannot hold to.

Here is my beliefs clearly stated.


A woman should be covered at all times, if she is uncovered while praying or prophesying she dishonors her head.

A man should be uncovered at all times. If he prays covered, then he dishonors his head.

I resend my statement about just being covered while praying or prophesying and offer this one in its place.

A woman should be under authority at all times. When she is not under authority during praying and prophesying she dishonors her own head.
This wraps up my thoughts without separating them.

Sorry for the confusion.
Click to expand...
Define "covered".
 
The Revolting Man said:
Of course but this doesn't only go one way young man. You've been challenged to provide a consistent explanation for how your beliefs on the passage could apply to both men and women. You need to provide an answer. I know you're stalling because you can't but you're an honest and intelligent young man and you're not going to be able to duck the question forever. There is an irreconcilable contradiction in your interpretation. My simple, face value explanation of the passage does not have that weakness.

My belief is simple. Paul states that there is a tradition that women should physically cover their head when praying or prophesying and that men shouldn't. This has nothing to do with the assembly. This is the simplest reading of the passage and requires no intellectual contortions to arrive at.

Yes, a woman need only cover when praying or prophesying. I go a few steps further in my house but that's a personal choice. It is not clear to me that a man can never wear a head covering. I assume you mean because we're told to pray without ceasing that then a man should always be in prayer. It's an interesting question but I don't see why a head covering can't be removed for prayer or the prayer postponed until it can be removed. I imagine that if we look in to the phrase "without ceasing" we will find that it does not mean every second of every minute of every day.

Yes. I've stated that multiple times. How is that even a question now unless you want to try and circle back to the High Priest argument? You are not the High Priest, you do not do everything the High Priest does. You are not a Levite. You do not do everything a Levite does.

No, not in this case. If the teaching was that a woman should have hair or be shorn it would of course be ridiculous. "That woman doesn't have hair! Shave it off!" This is why I think you have baggage with this issue. You clearly haven't spent time with this passage in an attempt to understand it's action items. Your interest has been to simply delegitimize it. You are refusing to check your preconceived notions.


This is a much larger argument. What do you mean by Torah? I assert that Paul's writings are Torah. And again, I've been explicit that this passage is not a command. There's no way to make it a command. You trying to roll my arguments back over to something easier for you to argue against is dishonest and frankly beneath you. Very few of Jesus' teachings were commands either.

Really what you mean to ask is, does anything Moses delivered at Sinai support my interpretation. Good question and I'd turn it back on you. Does anything Moses delivered at Sinai support your interpretation? I'm not aware of it if it does. Is there a command at Sinai that says a woman must be covered by a man at all times? And if there's not will you rescind the ridiculous assertion? Meanwhile, that's not a problem to me. A whole raft of things were added to our Faith away from Sinai, including all of the books of the Bible, the prophecies of Messiah, the Psalms, histories, Proverbs and all of the Prophets. You don't question any of those things and yet most of them happened hundreds of years removed from Sinai. If no scripture is valid unless it was referenced at Sinai then very little of scripture is valid. Do you accept Baptism? The Holy Spirit? The Second Coming? The Crucifixion? The New Jerusalem? None of these things were promulgated at Sinai.

So again, how does your interpretation apply to men and women at the same time? All of these other issues are distractions to mask this irreconcilable contradiction in an idea that really doesn't live up to your normal intellectual rigor. En garde.
Click to expand...
Hopefully my above argument addressed the inconsistency.
Thanks for sharing your interpretation clearly.
I cannot accept that the high priest and other priests were being dishonorable. I don't see any exception for priests in Paul's writing, we must either apply to them or not apply it.
If we apply it consistently to men the priests were dishonorable, therefore I cannot accept this application to the women either.
There are a few ways around this,
1. The requirements were changed by Yah and Paul recorded it
2. Paul didn't include priests on this admonition, but forgot to mention it.
3. Paul only addressed the Corinthians for current issues and that's why we don't see this in any other letters to the assemblies.

I can't see accepting any of these myself.


I see the Law and the prophets being His instruction. I also see the apostolic writings being His instruction. I try my best to make sure to interpret them so they don't contradict. To do so, I use the the law and the prophets as the foundation. The reason I was asking if it was a new command, is that would help explain why we don't see it in the law and the prophets, or any other letter to the churches that Paul wrote.

Define covered
The definition that I understand is under the protection and authority of. This definition fo me is gleaned from the whole counsel and not a single passage. I did write a previous post with a lot of those verses. Verse 3 of 1st Corinthians 11 is the context that I use to understand 1st Corinthians 11.

Does the "old" testament support authority structure? I believe it does. I can site several verses if you would like that help teach us this structure. Im assuming that you already know this though.
 
James Pease said:
Does the "old" testament support authority structure? I believe it does. I can site several verses if you would like that help teach us this structure. Im assuming that you already know this though.
Click to expand...
You should probably do this. I do not know it and you may be helping a weaker brother.
James Pease said:
The definition that I understand is under the protection and authority of. This definition fo me is gleaned from the whole counsel and not a single passage.
Click to expand...
How did you arrive at this definition? It is the only point of contention we have other than the priests.

And I must press this point, how does a man have the authority and covering of another man over his head? You are not addressing this all important question.

Priests and Torah and all the rest are distractions if you have an internal contradiction in your interpretation so large that it might allow for homosexuality.
 
Thanks to all for a content and thought filled discussion.

It seems to me that the concept is one if obedience and respect for authority. A priest was instructed to dress a certain way, including headress while performing duties. He is not dishonored his head in obeying his authority.
Women in all of society were to be in relationship to men as men have accountability for them and society as a whole.
The instruction for women to be silent in the assembly is clear. Assuming her man is present, she would be speaking for him, speaking over him, or asking questions that he can answer at home if she spoke. Any of these things detract from his ability to engage and either teach or learn from others.

My husband has always understood the nature of a head or covering to be authority and not a hat or scarf, etc. He doesn't ask me to wear anything on my head, but certainly wants me to represent him, his beliefs, and his wishes for how our home is, and how our family interacts with others.
 
The Revolting Man said:
You should probably do this. I do not know it and you may be helping a weaker brother.

How did you arrive at this definition? It is the only point of contention we have other than the priests.

And I must press this point, how does a man have the authority and covering of another man over his head? You are not addressing this all important question.

Priests and Torah and all the rest are distractions if you have an internal contradiction in your interpretation so large that it might allow for homosexuality.
Click to expand...
I will put together the verses and how I come to my definition. It may take me a bit to get everything together, but I will make sure to do it.

Does sending you Pete's book on authority and family structure count? Lol

I cite the catholic church as a physical example. They say you cannot confess your sins but through them. You cannot do many things without their permission, marry, work, sing, pray, ect. Men should be and are free to approach the messiah without anyone in between, and free to govern his house. Man has always been able to pray to God without needing a "man" to intercede on his behalf. "Note, not saying we don't need a messiah". The structure is God, messiah, man, woman, not God messiah, man(possible self proclaimed prophet), man, woman. Were the Pharisees trying to stand between man and God? Was Paul addressing this? Was what Yeshua said in Matthew 23 connected at all?

Matthew 23
13¶'Wo to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut up the reign of the heavens before men, for ye do not go in, nor those going in do ye suffer to enter.
 
Last edited:
1 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.

I hadn’t realized that this verse wasn’t specifically about wives.
The implication is that all women are under a man, whether father or husband.
How the divorced or widowed fit in isn’t specified.

Outline of Biblical Usage:
  1. a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow
  2. a wife
    1. of a betrothed woman.
 
steve said:
1 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
Click to expand...
That's a good example of a verse that lost quite a bit through multiple translations, Steve.

Meshiach (Messiah) ==> 'christ' (as with the root 'annointed', there were multiple people that fit that word; only One, however, of the Prophesied Messiah 'like unto Moshe'.)

isha (can mean 'woman' OR 'wife' - but in context it's clear)

'God' ==> the Greeks had TONS of these (see 'theos' and 'theology', the study of 'em) - but only One YHVH, who Name got replaced about 7000 times in total...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top