• 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"?

James Pease said:
What are your historical references to show it was a tradition?
Click to expand...
James Pease said:
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?
Click to expand...
To show it is a tradition, we can look outside scripture, so I'll quote the Quran. There is only one verse in the entire Quran that even obliquely mentions head covering, and this is it, discussing modest dress:
Quran 24:31 said:
“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their chastity, and not to reveal their adornments except what normally appears. Let them draw their veils over their chests, and not reveal their ˹hidden˺ adornments except to their husbands, their fathers, their fathers-in-law, their sons, their stepsons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons or sisters’ sons, their fellow women, those ˹bondwomen˺ in their possession, male attendants with no desire, or children who are still unaware of women’s nakedness. Let them not stomp their feet, drawing attention to their hidden adornments. Turn to Allah in repentance all together, O believers, so that you may be successful.”
Click to expand...
That one short phrase "Let them draw their veils/headscarves over their chests" is the only phrase Muslims cite from the Quran to justify headcovering - which is fascinating given how vague it is, and how big a deal that is to Muslims.

It's informative to us because this passage doesn't say "tell the women to wear veils/headscarves", but rather "tell the women, who are all already wearing veils/headscarves, to wear them in a particular way". This shows clearly that this style of dress pre-dated Islam. The women were being told how to behave given the style of dress they already had, not given a whole new dress style. So that puts headscarves or veils (depending on how it is translated) as common female dress in the Middle East back to the 6th century at least.
 
James Pease said:
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.
Click to expand...
James Pease said:
This is the word used there
View attachment 4136
Click to expand...
You are way over complicating this. Paul says it’s a tradition, we don’t need any historical references. However in multiple places, especially the woman accused of sexual uncleanness, the Old Testament assumes a married women’s head is covered.

The Nazarite vow is an interesting case and it should be looked into but it doesn’t change Paul’s basic instructions. Men should not cover their heads when they pray or prophesy and women should. It’s shameful otherwise, just like it’s shameful for a man to have long hair.

Also, it’s the part about men having long hair that I believe he’s talking about when he says that if anyone wants to argue we have no such tradition.

There is not any circumstances under which a woman can speak in the assembly, covered or not.

I know there’s some weirdness in 1 Corinthians 11. Set that aside for a minute and just look at the action points. What actions are being encouraged or discouraged. Obedience comes first then increasing understanding.
 
The Revolting Man said:
You are way over complicating this. Paul says it’s a tradition, we don’t need any historical references. However in multiple places, especially the woman accused of sexual uncleanness, the Old Testament assumes a married women’s head is covered.

The Nazarite vow is an interesting case and it should be looked into but it doesn’t change Paul’s basic instructions. Men should not cover their heads when they pray or prophesy and women should. It’s shameful otherwise, just like it’s shameful for a man to have long hair.

Also, it’s the part about men having long hair that I believe he’s talking about when he says that if anyone wants to argue we have no such tradition.

There is not any circumstances under which a woman can speak in the assembly, covered or not.

I know there’s some weirdness in 1 Corinthians 11. Set that aside for a minute and just look at the action points. What actions are being encouraged or discouraged. Obedience comes first then increasing understanding.
Click to expand...
Did priests never pray when on duty?
 
Mark C said:

Do all women need a "covering"?​


Whatever it is, I can't help but wonder if those women who complain they DON'T need one, much less want it, probably need it the most.
Click to expand...
When I was an evangelical, I ended up thinking like this after years of disappointment. In the past 7 years that I have had a man to cover me, I've gradually seen just how lacking (needy) I was.
 
James Pease said:
Did priests never pray when on duty?
Click to expand...
I have no idea. Do we know if they all wore headcoverings? There are detailed descriptions of the High Priest's clothing, did he have a hat of some kind? If so is that relevant? There were a lot of Laws that applied only to the line of Aaron.
 
The Revolting Man said:
I have no idea. Do we know if they all wore headcoverings? There are detailed descriptions of the High Priest's clothing, did he have a hat of some kind? If so is that relevant? There were a lot of Laws that applied only to the line of Aaron.
Click to expand...
But, if the High Priest is a physical representation of Messiah and a representative of the people before Yah... makes this at least an interesting picture worthy of examination.

Yes, the HP had a rather fancy multicolored head covering and golden emblem. .. the rest of the priests wore simpler garb, but were also covered as I recall.
 
The Revolting Man said:
I have no idea. Do we know if they all wore headcoverings? There are detailed descriptions of the High Priest's clothing, did he have a hat of some kind? If so is that relevant? There were a lot of Laws that applied only to the line of Aaron.
Click to expand...
For the high priest for sure. So this is your logic Zek. The High priest when he makes atonement for the sin of all the people must dishonour his head as God commanded him to do so, or he must not pray or prophesy. Your logic had failed you. You do not understand 1 Corinthians 11. You have misinterpreted Paul just like Peter said many would do, and the reason is being unlearned in the writings. You have accused the high priest of being shameful, the clothing Yah prescribed for him, if he says 1 word to Yah is dishonoring his head.

Paul also taught to pray without ceasing, give thanks in all things. How is that possible? Are you just banning pieces of cloth for all men?

The reason people don't accept Paul's writings, is because people poorly represent them with their own misunderstandings and while doing so contradict the Torah, just like you are doing.
 
Yah's rendering
Exodus 28
2 “You shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother, for glory and for beauty.

Zek's rendering
Exodus 28
2“You shall make unholy garments for Aaron your brother, for shame and for dishonor.
 
The Revolting Man said:
I have no idea. Do we know if they all wore headcoverings? There are detailed descriptions of the High Priest's clothing, did he have a hat of some kind? If so is that relevant? There were a lot of Laws that applied only to the line of Aaron.
Click to expand...
Exodus 28
40¶“For Aaron’s sons you shall make tunics; you shall also make sashes for them, and you shall make caps for them, for glory and for beauty.

41“You shall put them on Aaron your brother and on his sons with him; and you shall anoint them and ordain them and consecrate them, that they may serve Me as priests.

Yah must not liked the priests talking to him. That must be why He made then wear coverings for glory and beauty, that they may be priests unto Him.
 
The Revolting Man said:
I have no idea. Do we know if they all wore headcoverings? There are detailed descriptions of the High Priest's clothing, did he have a hat of some kind? If so is that relevant? There were a lot of Laws that applied only to the line of Aaron.
Click to expand...

Not sure your view of the "millennial temple", but regardless

Ezekiel 44
17“It shall be that when they enter at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments; and wool shall not be on them while they are ministering in the gates of the inner court and in the house.

18“Linen turbans shall be on their heads and linen undergarments shall be on their loins; they shall not gird themselves with anything which makes them sweat.
 
2nd Chronicles 30
21The sons of Israel present in Jerusalem celebrated the Feast of Unleavened Bread for seven days with great joy, and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD day after day with loud instruments to the LORD.


27Then the Levitical priests arose and blessed the people; and their voice was heard and their prayer came to His holy dwelling place, to heaven.

If only Paul would've been alive to correct these misguided priests.
 
Numbers 6
22¶Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,

23“Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘Thus you shall bless the sons of Israel. You shall say to them:

24¶The LORD bless you, and keep you;

25¶The LORD make His face shine on you, And be gracious to you;

26¶The LORD lift up His countenance on you, And give you peace.’

27“So they shall invoke My name on the sons of Israel, and I then will bless them.”

Look how shameful Paul says this Aaronic blessing is, Aaron and his sons trying to bless the sons of Israel while wearing the Yah prescribed priestly garments. How shameful.
 
Leviticus 10
6Then Moses said to Aaron and to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, “Do not uncover your heads nor tear your clothes, so that you will not die and that He will not become wrathful against all the congregation. But your kinsmen, the whole house of Israel, shall bewail the burning which the LORD has brought about.

Must be a tough choice for Aaron. His sons just died. If he uncovers his head Yah will kill him. I guess in his mourning he can't talk to Yah, or he would be dishonoring his head.
 
22¶Then Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them, and he stepped down after making the sin offering and the burnt offering and the peace offerings.

23Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting. When they came out and blessed the people, the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people.

24Then fire came out from before the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the portions of fat on the altar; and when all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces.


I can keep going, but these are sufficient enough.
 
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?
 
James Pease said:
22¶Then Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them, and he stepped down after making the sin offering and the burnt offering and the peace offerings.

23Moses and Aaron went into the tent of meeting. When they came out and blessed the people, the glory of the LORD appeared to all the people.

24Then fire came out from before the LORD and consumed the burnt offering and the portions of fat on the altar; and when all the people saw it, they shouted and fell on their faces.


I can keep going, but these are sufficient enough.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top