It is shameful for a woman to be uncovered

[MontanaDaniel]

Hey apologies to anyone that was discussing the original topic here, didn't mean to derail it with epic monologues!

Its this Keith person (any of you even know him?), he keeps being... friendly to me, and... saying interesting things that spark good conversations, the nerve...

 

[steve]

Its this Keith person (any of you even know him?), he keeps being... friendly to me, and... saying interesting things that spark good conversations, the nerve...

Warning: Retreat Commercial

That’s the wonderful thing about retreats, I have shared several deep discussions with that interesting, complex man.
When you have broken bread with the online people that you are discussing/wrangling with, it brings a deeper flavor to the interactions.

 

[Keith Martin]

Warning: Retreat Commercial

That’s the wonderful thing about retreats, I have shared several deep discussions with that interesting, complex man.
When you have broken bread with the online people that you are discussing/wrangling with, it brings a deeper flavor to the interactions.

You took the words right out of my mouth, Steve. Getting to know you at the smaller Florida retreat was priceless for me. There is great value in these discussions here online, but they simply can't replace that bread-breaking quality of knowing each other in person.

Thanks for the Retreat Commercial!

Keith

cc: Mountain Man Dan, aka @MontanaDaniel

 

[steve]

You took the words right out of my mouth, Steve. Getting to know you at the smaller Florida retreat was priceless for me. There is great value in these discussions here online, but they simply can't replace that bread-breaking quality of knowing each other in person.

Thanks for the Retreat Commercial!

Keith

cc: Mountain Man Dan, aka @MontanaDaniel

I’m not worthy, but thank you, brother.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

I am amazed at how much I am continuing to learn in this group! I had heard some people talking about how women need a covering, and that they interpreted that covering to be a husband, and I had no idea where they got that notion from! It makes so much sense, given the context and the fact that nowhere in that text does Paul ever mention the use of a cloth to cover the woman! Given how serious Paul is in his admonition, talking about the woman who is not being covered, having her hair cut off, which is not a pretty picture, it amazes me how some churches today, completely ignore that verse, while others, insist that women wear this piece of cloth on her head all the time, which is one reason my wife didn't care too much for the AOG church in her hometown.

Mind blown!

 

[rockfox]

nowhere in that text does Paul ever mention the use of a cloth to cover the woman

You can't get that interpretation from a plain English (or Greek) reading of 1 Cor 11. And covering her head with cloth is the well established historical practice of the 1st century church until the 20th. The passage ALSO has spiritual implications with respect to a husband, but the cloth is there too.

 

[Pacman]

I am amazed at how much I am continuing to learn in this group! I had heard some people talking about how women need a covering, and that they interpreted that covering to be a husband, and I had no idea where they got that notion from! It makes so much sense, given the context and the fact that nowhere in that text does Paul ever mention the use of a cloth to cover the woman! Given how serious Paul is in his admonition, talking about the woman who is not being covered, having her hair cut off, which is not a pretty picture, it amazes me how some churches today, completely ignore that verse, while others, insist that women wear this piece of cloth on her head all the time, which is one reason my wife didn't care too much for the AOG church in her hometown.

Mind blown!

More on this here

 

[The Revolting Man]

I am amazed at how much I am continuing to learn in this group! I had heard some people talking about how women need a covering, and that they interpreted that covering to be a husband, and I had no idea where they got that notion from! It makes so much sense, given the context and the fact that nowhere in that text does Paul ever mention the use of a cloth to cover the woman! Given how serious Paul is in his admonition, talking about the woman who is not being covered, having her hair cut off, which is not a pretty picture, it amazes me how some churches today, completely ignore that verse, while others, insist that women wear this piece of cloth on her head all the time, which is one reason my wife didn't care too much for the AOG church in her hometown.

Mind blown!

I would gather back up the pieces of your mind and maybe look for some superglue. This entire thread has ignored the fact that 1 Corinthians 11 says that is shameful for a woman to have her head uncovered IF she is praying or prophesying. This beautiful but creaky edifice that has been built here would mean that women are free to ditch their husband or father as soon as the praying and prophesying is done.

In addition, the corollary is also true. It is shameful for the man to be covered when he is praying and prophesying which clearly implies that it is not shameful if he isn’t praying or prophesying. So if this passage has anything to do with marriage then we have some bigger issues.

The whole passage is dealing with things that go on and come off your head. We shouldn’t skip past that to get some grand idea with no actual application in our lives.

I get that a lot of men don’t want to deal with literal head covering but this seemed to be pretty tortured to begin with. Sorry @PeteR , I don’t disagree with the principle but I think this is the wrong way to get there. There is a simple, literal meaning and all spiritual truths have a physical representation to them so jumping past that to get to something so complex is getting the cart before the horse.

 

[The Revolting Man]

More on this here

Oh I just followed the link to your blog post. I am on the wrong side of the heavy hitters!

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I am under the impression that 1 cor 11 is chiefly discussing whether or not to wear the outward symbols of authority. As far as whether a man or woman actually IS uncovered: I don't know that we have much choice.

The head of woman is man, the head of "every" man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.

Women are under authority of men whether or not they act like it and whether or not they wear the symbol of authority. Every man is under the head of Christ whether or not he acts like it or what his hair is doing or what is on his actual scalp. And of course there was never any doubt that Christ is under the authority of God.

I believe appropriate physical covering is a way of signalling submission to inescapable spiritual fact.

Which is to say, I don't know that women are ever spiritually 'uncovered'. Women were made for men. If they are fatherless and unmarried, life must be tough for them, but I don't know that they are positionally disadvantaged as in 'unapproved by God' because of it. I think of the Widow that God prepared to house Elijah. She lived on her own without father or husband, and couldn't even claim to be under the covenant, being a Sidonian. Yet God had care for her and she found deliverance through serving a man, just not through traditional family or marriage. Which can be taken to mean several things, but I'm highlighting that even a gentile widow knew that even nature itself teaches that she is under the authority of men.

 

[steve]

but I don't know that they are positionally disadvantaged as in 'unapproved by God' because of it.

I believe that Isaiah 4:1 teaches differently.
.........to take away our reproach.

 

[PeteR]

I don't know that women are ever spiritually 'uncovere

In the broadest sense, even the sparrows have covering.... so then, why is Scripture so specific about teaching headship, roles and the need for a woman to have covering? Maybe there really is something to it?

@steve exactly... there is sonething to it that is deeply spiritual with profound implications.

 

[The Revolting Man]

In the broadest sense, even the sparrows have covering.... so then, why is Scripture so specific about teaching headship, roles and the need for a woman to have covering? Maybe there really is something to it?

@steve exactly... there is sonething to it that is deeply spiritual with profound implications.

If that is so then the physical representations of it are probably pretty important too. Again, I'm not disagreeing with the idea just the reasoning.

 

[steve]

If that is so then the physical representations of it are probably pretty important too. Again, I'm not disagreeing with the idea just the reasoning.

1 Corinthians 11:10 (KJV) ........because of the angels.

Yup, if you are showing the angels that you are not under authority........oh crap, this isn’t gonna go over very well

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I believe that Isaiah 4:1 teaches differently.
.........to take away our reproach.

Fair point, but I'm of the opinion that the reproach they feel is social rather than spiritual. After all, their humiliation is that they are bald, haggard, and stinky. And of course the greatest blow of all, they are without their accessories!! But if they had a husband that would spread the hem of his robe over them, they would not feel so ugly and unwanted. The women that are being spoken of here are some of the most shallow specimens to be found, judging by their description in chapter 3.

As for their actual spiritual disgrace, mere marriage (however polygynous ) won't even touch it, IMO. Jesus will do all of that Himself, with a spirit of fire and a spirit of judgment (v.4),. (As something to ponder more, I note that the Lord also provides a covering Himself in the form a canopy of smoke and fire)

(Side note: Not that I don't think that it would be best for all women to be under the recognized authority of a man; but when I say that I mean it in the exact way that I say all children should have fathers. As in they are really lacking if they don't have one: But God doesn't look down on them at all. As a matter of fact the "widows and the fatherless" occupy a special place of care in God's heart that no mere patriarch can aspire to.) (Also I'm not trying to build a false equivalency between an unmarried women and widows- just trying to spit out the general shape of my thoughts)

In the broadest sense, even the sparrows have covering.... so then, why is Scripture so specific about teaching headship, roles and the need for a woman to have covering? Maybe there really is something to it?

Uh oh... I have a feeling I'm in danger of getting called a feminist again... (j/k)

So I'm not saying that a woman being without the specific authority of a father or a husband isn't a shame. What I am saying is that it isn't necessarily her shame. Until a better analogy presents itself, I equate a 'symbol of authority' to a "rank on a soldier's uniform" in which a rough and dirty (and incomplete) expression of rank is:

Long (kome) hair < trimmed (short) hair < Nail pierced hands < Unapproachable light (to use Jack Chick's imagery anyways...)

Now it's a big deal if a soldier is wearing the wrong rank. I never was a soldier, but there are some things I just know intuitively. But if a soldier is separated from his command structure by happenstance, it's sort of expected that it would happen at some point, on account of combat never really going how it should. That isn't the soldier's fault (necessarily) and he probably won't face adverse action when he is recovered.

The analogy breaks down on the wrong side because it seems to me that there are good circumstances where a female ends up without male headship.

Here's my hypothetical:
My name is Phillip and I have 4 unmarried daughters who prophesy. My good brother Paul comes over and stays for several days and I ask if his unmarried self would like to marry one of my daughters. (Apostle hubby and prophetess wife = Power Couple) but he expounds to me that his time as a free man is short and our other brother Agabus concurs. Furthermore, Paul expounds to me a thing that he told the brothers at Corinth; that an unmarried woman serves the Lord better than a woman who is married. I therefore decide to from then on turn all suitors away from my daughters. In the course of time my daughters grow from desirable young ladies into women past their childbearing years when I finally go to meet the Lord in person. My daughters no longer have me as their 'covering' yet they also also pledged themselves to serving the Lord, and their good brother Timothy assures them that it would be a step down for them to get married and the Lord would blame them if they did.

So there they are: Unmarried and (by some reckonings) Uncovered: But does God visit any reproach upon them? I say no.
I used an extreme example, but I have another, more common one: I say that there are women who remain unmarried outside of their control. Like Leah, they aren't much to look at, but unlike Leah they don't have any glorious bastard fathers to arrange them marriages by trickery. What is their sin that God looks down on them?

Now here is my "really really real" question: What specific, spiritual disadvantage does a woman who is unmarried and has no father to live under have?

Does God not hear her prayers? Do angels not minister to her? Can you quantify it, or point a finger at it anywhere?

Or is it really (as I suspect) that as long as she is poor in spirit and is covered by the blood of Jesus Christ that her prayers go right from her lips to the Father's ears? And that at His bidding: dangerous warring angels rush to surround her, just as quickly as if she were married?

there is sonething to it that is deeply spiritual with profound implications.

Now at this point I'm in agreement. I believe we ignore the physical representations of our station at our peril, because God and the angels will hold us accountable for them. I can cut or fail to cut my hair easily enough. I can take off my ball cap when I pray fairly easily. A woman can grow out her hair or toss a cloth over her head when she prays, it is not difficult. That is within her power. Buuuuuuuut in my culture it isn't always a guarantee that your parents will allow you to live with them past your 18th birthday, and finding someone to marry is not a trivial task for everyone. I don't think a woman's covering status is usually a submission or chain-of-command issue.

 

[rockfox]

The analogy breaks down on the wrong side because it seems to me that there are good circumstances where a female ends up without male headship.

Here's my hypothetical:
My name is Phillip and I have 4 unmarried daughters who prophesy. My good brother Paul comes over and stays for several days and I ask if his unmarried self would like to marry one of my daughters. (Apostle hubby and prophetess wife = Power Couple) but he expounds to me that his time as a free man is short and our other brother Agabus concurs. Furthermore, Paul expounds to me a thing that he told the brothers at Corinth; that an unmarried woman serves the Lord better than a woman who is married. I therefore decide to from then on turn all suitors away from my daughters. In the course of time my daughters grow from desirable young ladies into women past their childbearing years when I finally go to meet the Lord in person. My daughters no longer have me as their 'covering' yet they also also pledged themselves to serving the Lord, and their good brother Timothy assures them that it would be a step down for them to get married and the Lord would blame them if they did.

That particular situation is so rare as to be meaningless. It just doesn't happen. But you can be assured every run of the mill older woman out there without husband and not living in her fathers house is like, "I wanted to get married, it just ended up that way", as if her actions and attitudes had absolutely no bearing on how she ended up alone.

So there they are: Unmarried and (by some reckonings) Uncovered: But does God visit any reproach upon them? I say no.

That is our modern outlook. If you read the Bible, the very fact of her childless is a severe reproach against her. This is a foreign idea to us. But then we live in a day where women everywhere strive to be like men. What does the Bible say? What is God's created purpose for women?

It is to be a help meet to her man and bear children. All other things, wonderful though they may be, are secondary to that. Save widowhood or faithlessness, two things pittied in scripture, women all have male headship. In the example of Phillip's daughters, they'd likely fall to the church, if older, or to a brother or uncle if younger. Strong independent women living on their own weren't a thing. Do you find yourself without male authority in your life? Get one. (1 Tim 5:14)

Now here is my "really really real" question: What specific, spiritual disadvantage does a woman who is unmarried and has no father to live under have?

Does God not hear her prayers? Do angels not minister to her? Can you quantify it, or point a finger at it anywhere?

How can there not be consequences for rejecting her created purpose in life? He is the potter, we are but his vessels; in this case literally made for childbearing.

To be clear, I don't mean a virtuous young woman who is earnestly looking for a husband, I mean the stereotypical delayed marriage while fornicating woman, the women who don't make finding a husband and starting a family their highest priority, the women whose actions or lack thereof make them unappealing marriage prospects.

Given 1 Cor 11 I'd say it is likely that a woman who lives in rebellion to masculine authority in her life, who refuses to cover her head in prayer (having been made aware of 1 Cor 11), who lived a life of hedonism instead of virtue, likely has lost her angelic ministers/protectors.

Beyond that? Hard to say; God doesn't go into great detail on this level of spiritual matters. But let's face it, unless she has specifically dedicated her life to service to God (a la nun), the unmarried childless woman who is not putting her energies in to changing that is living in active rebellion against her created purpose. Now given the complete dearth of proper life education from parents, and the patience of God, it is hard to say when, and to what degree, consequences will come.

But they will come. One need only look at the rates of depression in women to see that temporal consequences come. So there are consequences, the spiritual ones just lie hidden.

If a man doesn't deal with his wife appropriately, his prayers are hindered. It is reasonable to assume the same is true for rebellious women. If a woman refuses to cover her head in prayer when approaching the King of Kings as directed, why should God listen to her petition? To not do so is to disrespect, to challenge even, His authority; any earthly king would disregard such petitions.

Or is it really (as I suspect) that as long as she is poor in spirit and is covered by the blood of Jesus Christ that her prayers go right from her lips to the Father's ears? And that at His bidding: dangerous warring angels rush to surround her, just as quickly as if she were married?

Define poor in spirit. Cause it sounds as if your're saying no consequence for rebellion on her part will be visited upon her.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

@rockfox it looks like we aren't really disagreeing on much.

I mean the stereotypical delayed marriage while fornicating woman

Clearly we have no disagreement there. At least I hope that's clear. If it's not clear: here goes "I'm not talking about fornicating women". I suppose there are loose women out there who sleep around while delaying marriage that also are considering covering their heads with a cloth or growing their hair out, but give me the credit that I'm not setting myself up as their defender.

the women who don't make finding a husband and starting a family their highest priority

huh... highest priority, eh? Are we still talking about the fornicating woman or have you just introduced a celibate woman not seeking a man as her equivalent?

the women whose actions or lack thereof make them unappealing marriage prospects.

See, I introduced a physically unappealing person as my example, and you answered with a behaviorally unappealing person. I'll cede your point here if you'll take a minute to even see mine.

But more to the point: my question was

What specific, spiritual disadvantage does a woman who is unmarried and has no father to live under have?

and you answered with

How can there not be consequences for rejecting her created purpose in life?

Which is just answering a question with a question. You got a specific spiritual disadvantage for me, or do you only have the assumption that there is one? Give me your evidence, not your rhetoric.

f a man doesn't deal with his wife appropriately, his prayers are hindered. It is reasonable to assume the same is true for rebellious women. If a woman refuses to cover her head in prayer when approaching the King of Kings as directed, why should God listen to her petition?

See this is what I'm talking about. Let's not talk about godly prophetic virgins that don't exist (ouch!, but ok) . Let's talk about godly ugly women that do.

We both actually agree about women needing a covering on their head as a symbol of their authority, and I'm right there with you as far as that very likely hindering their prayers. But what if that prayer cloth sits atop a face made for radio? Where's her rebellion? What'd she do wrong?

Part 2: Her created purpose.

Yeah I get it. I get it. I even agree with it. A woman's place is childbearing and faith and holiness and self control. Ya se. Amen and Amen.

And yet 1 Corinthians 7:34-38 sits there right in the middle of your plate like vegetables that you don't want to touch. It doesn't matter at all to my argument that anything that the scripture records doesn't usually happen in real life. The argument that an unmarried woman is in rebellion against her purpose is hollow if scripture allows her to be so.

So while I can agree with you that yes, most single or unmarried women out there are probably in some form of rebellion, I don't see what makes them so special. After all I'd also say that most married Christian women are ALSO in rebellion against their God-appointed role as submissive to their own husbands.

I say that a woman can remain as an unmarried celibate and serve the Lord. I say if she can't do that then she should get married. And that is the precise order I put on it. I also say that men can remain celibate and serve the Lord, and if they can't do that they should get married and that too is the exact order I put on it.

The body of Christ woefully lacks polygynous families: but it is my opinion that it lacks much more celibates dedicated to pleasing the Lord. I think shaming celibates of either sex is counterproductive and wrong. Rather we should encourage unmarried people who have no physical need (hormonal or otherwise) for a spouse to dedicate themselves to God.

I personally know a man who is a great guy, but I don't think he should have gotten married. It's too late now obviously, but he served the Lord with passion and self-abandonment when he was single; and he had zero problems with his sex drive. He testifies himself that he didn't really need a woman but one attached herself to him and he just went along with the flow, and now his life is marked by a lesser dedication to pleasing God, and countless worldly distractions. Exactly what the bible said would happen.

I don't know how you'd view this situation. I have it in mind that you think what he did is what was best, because he provided a covering for a young woman and put her womb into childbearing action. I think the Church was robbed of a hero. I don't judge my brother at all for this: He has not sinned. But I long to see men and women who have left the world and its pleasures behind.

If I can speak blatant heresy (on this site, at least) I think the prayers of a celibate woman do more for the kingdom than the womb of a married one, just like I think that the ministry of an unmarried man does more for the Kingdom than the issue of a patriarch.

 

[PeteR]

Now here is my "really really real" question: What specific, spiritual disadvantage does a woman who is unmarried and has no father to live under have?

Numbers 30:9 is one specific application demonstrating a disadvantage to being uncovered in something as small as a vow or oath. V.15 clearly says the iniquity of a covered woman in this area falls on the man if he protects her by annulling an oath or vow. In short: Covered = protected and guiltless; uncovered = unprotected and (assumed) bears her own guilt.

How much moreso in the bigger things?

 

[PeteR]

If I can speak blatant heresy (on this site, at least) I think the prayers of a celibate woman do more for the kingdom than the womb of a married one, just like I think that the ministry of an unmarried man does more for the Kingdom than the issue of a patriarch.

While the Father may use those specific circumstances, scripture clearly indicates it is not His preferred option or planned calling. Therefore, I would beg to differ. The married man and the child bearing woman are fulfilling a creation mandate that is supported throughout Scripture as a righteous action that Yah blesses!

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Numbers 30:9 is one specific application demonstrating a disadvantage to being uncovered in something as small as a vow or oath. V.15 clearly says the iniquity of a covered woman in this area falls on the man if he protects her by annulling an oath or vow. In short: Covered = protected and guiltless; uncovered = unprotected and (assumed) bears her own guilt.

That is a satisfactory answer for me any day of the week. I see the advantage of having a safety net there. So the major disadvantage of a husband or father's covering is a lack of 'emotional commitment insurance'. That isn't the answer I thought I was gonna get, but dang me if it isn't exactly what I asked for....

How much moreso in the bigger things?

Whatchoo mean moreso and bigger? What's bigger than a vow but still covered by a father or husband?

While the Father may use those specific circumstances, scripture clearly indicates it is not His preferred option or planned calling.

I'm trying not to overstate my case so that I don't start saying things I don't agree with, but: If Jesus says not everyone can accept this word, only those to whom it has been given, and among those are those who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom's sake:: and if Paul says a man that it is better for men and women to be as he is if they have that gift : Well then both Jesus and Paul say that not needing a spouse, for whatever reason, is a gift. And who is the giver but God? And if so why talk about 'circumstances' as some sort of undesired occurrence that God can still use, instead of a manifestation of the very real, very planned, and very preferred calling that God has for that individual's life?

I grant a hundred times over that most don't have that gift, but I view with suspicion that the gift God gave Paul, to not need women, was a lesser or unplanned or un-preferred gift.