I don’t see that it is necessarily clear in the context.
It fits, but his unmarried daughter would fit also.
-
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"?
- Thread starter FollowingHim
- Start date
It fits, but his unmarried daughter would fit also.
And the part about how a man can have the same kind of covering as a woman?
I see his covering as the messiah. Anything else is a problem. Am I missing something?
So he dishonors Christ by praying with his head covered in the authority of the Messiah? Huh?
No read it in context. Christ is the head of man, any man praying with his head covered dishonors his head.
If you (a man) put authority between you and Christ you have broken the structure just presented. Man is made to be uncovered and the Glory of God. Woman is made to be covered and the Glory of man. If you interject a man into the place of the messiah, you ruin the structure. Of there is authority between woman and Christ, the structure fits perfectly.
Once again for the third time, if praying or prophesying with a hat (word used for simplicity since calling it a piece of cloth is offensive to some) dishonors Christ, then the clothing that God commanded the priest and High priest made them shameful when they blessed the people, prayed, and prophesied.
Yes, that’s ridiculous. Messiah is referred to as the head in that passage not the covering. A man could cover his head, which is Messiah, if he’s not praying or prophesying? You’re not really suggesting that are you?
It seems I did not understand what you were asking.
I'm not saying that. Im not saying that a man when he covers his head puts on the messiah. Maybe rephrasing it will help?
The Messiah is the Head of man. If man puts someone between him and the Messiah he covers his head.
Messiah provides headship for a man.
How does a woman cover her head? I believe it to be man's authority. Should a man have another man's authority over him? I think not.
@The Revolting Man
You state that a woman covering her head with a physical covering is a symbol of authority?
(Also I was not demeaning the covering by using the phrase a piece of cloth, I was using that to symbolize a literal covering)
By your logic when a man wears a physical covering, that would be a symbol of authority would it not? Or do you see a physical covering only being authority for a woman?
You state that a woman covering her head with a physical covering is a symbol of authority?
(Also I was not demeaning the covering by using the phrase a piece of cloth, I was using that to symbolize a literal covering)
By your logic when a man wears a physical covering, that would be a symbol of authority would it not? Or do you see a physical covering only being authority for a woman?
That it implies that it would be okay for a man to cover Messiah, put someone in between himself and Messiah according to you, when he’s not praying or prophesying.
The covering is qualified. It’s only important when praying or prophesying. Is that how you see Christ?
Actually you have another whole major contradiction I missed. There’s no way this passage can require women to always be covered by a man because it says it’s only when she’s praying or prophesying. The entire passage limits its own application.
You can’t claim that 1 Corinthians 11 requires that a woman always be covered by a man because according to the passage it’s perfectly okay for a woman to be uncovered when she’s not praying or prophesying. It doesn’t require her to always be covered.
Your claim is that it has broad, permanent application. It does not. It’s very narrowly focused. And to try and shoehorn Christ in to this passage (other than Him being the head of the man) is to severely limit Christ to that same narrow focus.
The more you try and make this thing fit the more you run into insurmountable obstacles. You have to find a solution that can work for both men and women and also not limit the Kingship of Christ. You’re running out of options.
Great points @The Revolting Man
Added to these is the word for covering. James, it’s a word that describes something that obscures vision of the subject. It’s a veil that covers. A skirt, the glory of the Most High covering a mountain, a veil over a woman’s head, a man’s skirt. You can’t get around the usage of the word. That word covering does not stand for “authority”. It means a covering, something that obscures your sight of the thing.
Added to these is the word for covering. James, it’s a word that describes something that obscures vision of the subject. It’s a veil that covers. A skirt, the glory of the Most High covering a mountain, a veil over a woman’s head, a man’s skirt. You can’t get around the usage of the word. That word covering does not stand for “authority”. It means a covering, something that obscures your sight of the thing.
Dear lord, we should have gone there first. Great point!
To me the passage addresses both praying and prophesying as well as general application. Verse 6 and 7 I believe are general applications. The chapter also tells us that a woman is not independent from man nor man independent from woman. I guess that's only while they are praying? I guess what we learn from nature is also only applied while praying? Its only dishonorable for a man to have long hair while praying and the woman's hair is only given to her for a covering while praying.
If this whole teaching is only to be applied to praying and prophesying does that make man the head of woman only while praying and prophesying? And the Messiah only the head of man while praying and prophesying? I think not.
@NickF please define the word covered in verse 4 in context of having the man covered.
@NickF and @The Revolting Man
Please interpret verse 10. A woman ought to have what on her head? The word I find is this. Authority/power. Is this her covering or what is this? And she should only have authority on her head while praying and prophesying right?
G1849 - exousia
power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases
leave or permission
physical and mental power
the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises
the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege)
the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed)
universally
authority over mankind
specifically
the power of judicial decisions
of authority to manage domestic affairs
metonymically
a thing subject to authority or rule
jurisdiction
one who possesses authority
a ruler, a human magistrate
the leading and more powerful among created beings superior to man, spiritual potentates
a sign of the husband's authority over his wife
the veil with which propriety required a women to cover herself
the sign of regal authority, a crown.
If this whole teaching is only to be applied to praying and prophesying does that make man the head of woman only while praying and prophesying? And the Messiah only the head of man while praying and prophesying? I think not.
@NickF please define the word covered in verse 4 in context of having the man covered.
@NickF and @The Revolting Man
Please interpret verse 10. A woman ought to have what on her head? The word I find is this. Authority/power. Is this her covering or what is this? And she should only have authority on her head while praying and prophesying right?
G1849 - exousia
power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases
leave or permission
physical and mental power
the ability or strength with which one is endued, which he either possesses or exercises
the power of authority (influence) and of right (privilege)
the power of rule or government (the power of him whose will and commands must be submitted to by others and obeyed)
universally
authority over mankind
specifically
the power of judicial decisions
of authority to manage domestic affairs
metonymically
a thing subject to authority or rule
jurisdiction
one who possesses authority
a ruler, a human magistrate
the leading and more powerful among created beings superior to man, spiritual potentates
a sign of the husband's authority over his wife
the veil with which propriety required a women to cover herself
the sign of regal authority, a crown.
I'm remembering the story of Baalam. He was told not to go...went anyway....almost got struck dead by a messenger of The Lord, then was told to ONLY say what YHWH told him to say. Like the difference in a true prophet or a false one? Maybe the instructions for women to cover is related to this concept of accurately representing your head when praying of prophesying.
You are just very confused about this whole passage and you are adding things, deleting things and completely misconstruing things.
The bit about men’s long hair is an aside to illustrate the main point. Paul is famous for this. Sometimes his asides take chapters. Set the aside aside. We don’t know what it’s illustrating until we have the meat of the passage hammered out. However, given that the aside is about hair and the passage is about hair, there’s a chance we’re talking about hair.
Unfortunately you can’t separate them from verses 4-7. They’re speaking about the same things; covering heads, and so have to be reconciled in to the same message. It can be a multi-faceted message but it has to be the same message.
Again, you’re trying to make the passage do too much. The passage is only about what men and women should do when praying or prophesying, at least verses 4-7 are. You’re trying to make it be a bigger principle. Principles are fine and they may even apply here but the instructions are much simpler and clear cut.
No. The passage is not about men being the head of the woman. It’s about what both men and women should do while praying or prophesying BECAUSE the man is the head of the woman. This passage, verses 4-7, are not the proof text for male headship. It would be a weak case if that were so. Verses 4-7 are instructions for a very narrowly defined (in the text no less) set of circumstances.
@NickF came up with a very different definition of the word covering. Can you share your source for this definition?
And once again, you’re trying to blow this simple passage up into a major theology. You need to make the case why this passage shouldn’t be interpreted within the limitations it places on itself. Why should it be a broader principle?
Last edited:
BLB, using the Greek language that they translated it from. Not 1 verse used anywhere in the new Testament uses this verse as a physical covering. Unless you want to use it in this Corinthians passage this way.
Your interpretation is not supported by the scriptures. Let me ask you this.
What year did it become shameful for a man to cover his head and pray? Was it always?
Where is this tradition showed in the scripture that Paul was supposedly teaching?
Did Paul really learn something contrary to the Torah? And then teach it to others? Why are there men with coverings praying and prophesying in the bible?
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
κατακαλύπτω katakalýptō, kat-ak-al-oop'-to; from G2596 and G2572; to cover wholly, i.e. veil:—cover, hide.
Num 4:5
In the LXX, same word root
And when the camp setteth forward, Aaron shall come, and his sons, and they shall take down the covering vail, and cover the ark of testimony with it:
h3680 Kasa
Dude, there's no mention of "authority", but plenty of usages where it's a veil, wings overshadowing, a badger skin, a skirt, a veil, a piece of cloth... You're taking a principle of authority and assigning it to something not meant to hold that meaning. This whole 1 Cor 11 passage is speaking about a literal physical covering that obscures someone's vision.
κατακαλύπτω katakalýptō, kat-ak-al-oop'-to; from G2596 and G2572; to cover wholly, i.e. veil:—cover, hide.
Num 4:5
In the LXX, same word root
And when the camp setteth forward, Aaron shall come, and his sons, and they shall take down the covering vail, and cover the ark of testimony with it:
h3680 Kasa
- to cover, conceal, hide
- (Qal) conceal, covered (participle)
- (Niphal) to be covered
- (Piel)
- to cover, clothe
- to cover, conceal
- to cover (for protection)
- to cover over, spread over
- to cover, overwhelm
- (Pual)
- to be covered
- to be clothed
- (Hithpael) to cover oneself, clothe oneself
Dude, there's no mention of "authority", but plenty of usages where it's a veil, wings overshadowing, a badger skin, a skirt, a veil, a piece of cloth... You're taking a principle of authority and assigning it to something not meant to hold that meaning. This whole 1 Cor 11 passage is speaking about a literal physical covering that obscures someone's vision.
James, you're giving us a prime example of eisegesis. You decided in your mind that the passage was about authority over a man. If I had to guess, this stemmed from earlier this year when you had difficulties surrounding other men claiming they held authority over your decisions. You rightly rejected their false claim of authority over you and that need for independence has colored your perception of this passage.
Read the usages of the word Katakalypto and Kata. It does symbolize authority, but it is a literal, physical thing that covers another thing. It's a badger skin, a veil, a skirt, a blanket, a layer of fat that covers internal organs. You can't get around the simple fact that the word means some physical thing that covers/obscures from view.
Read the usages of the word Katakalypto and Kata. It does symbolize authority, but it is a literal, physical thing that covers another thing. It's a badger skin, a veil, a skirt, a blanket, a layer of fat that covers internal organs. You can't get around the simple fact that the word means some physical thing that covers/obscures from view.
Off-gridinwv
New Member
My take that I get out of this passage: head covering is a ordinance. Paul was not telling them to put on their covering but rather that they don't take them off. The Corinthian women knew it was not lawful to pray or prophesy in the presence of men so they would uncover when doing so with the women seeing they were not in the presence of men. Paul tells them they still need to cover because of the angels which are referred to as men in the Bible. So in reality they were still in the presence of men. I also know that just because a woman wears a covering doesn't mean she's not a feminist at heart