Marital Covering

[rockfox]

A recent testimony brought up something I'm not familiar with: the covering a man provides a woman in marriage:

During one of my prayer sessions Abba told me that Jim’s wanting a second wife has nothing to do with any shortcomings in me or our relationship…it was about the COVERING Jim could provide another wife.

Am I right this refers to spiritual covering? Can someone explain this concept, how it plays into polygamy and what it's foundation in the Bible is?

I've heard of this a few times but not really explained and most of the noise online was feminist hate of the concept. I get the concepts of spiritual leadership, headship, and submission in marriage. But this particular term I'm unfamiliar with.

 

[JimC]

Isaiah 3 and 4 is an End Time Prophecy and describes a form of salvation in surviving the coming of Messiah for those that are not under a covering of a righteous man are destroyed. The women's behavior in Isaiah 3 is not all that great, and a bit haughty and provocative. Those that recognize this and repent and choose to share a husband in Isaiah 4 are saved from the coming destruction. This is not speaking of the salvation that is a free gift, but of the destruction that comes through the end times at the coming of the Messiah. Already in some Middle Eastern communities this is happening. Women who have no male covering are being beaten or executed for being in public without an escort. It may not happen that way here in the Western World right away, but it will be a world wide phenomenon at some point.

Other references
1 Corinthians 11: 3
But I want you to understand that the head of every man is the Messiah, and the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of the Messiah is G-d.

Isaiah 3:16
Moreover Adonai says:
“Because Tziyon’s women are so proud, walking with their heads in the air and throwing seductive glances, moving with mincing steps and jingling their anklets —

17
Adonai will strike the crown of the heads of Tziyon’s women with sores, and Adonai will expose their private parts.”

Isaiah 4:1
On that day, seven women will grab hold of one man and say, “We will supply our own food and wear our own clothes. Just let us bear your name; take away our disgrace.”

 

[mystic]

I wondered too but decided to just absorb the meaning from usage and context. The idea I get is that it's a handy word for capturing, in broad fashion, the relation of a man to a woman who submits to him. That is, it seems hardly more particular than the word patriarchy itself but helps fill out a vocabulary for the ins and outs of patriarchal living.

Whether or not it's an explicit reference to any particular bit of ancient text seems less important than that it is both potent and non-derogatory.

If a woman is under a man, the general state of his being over her can be referred to as covering. The ways in which he is over her need not be restricted to definitions (to define is to note the ends of a thing; some things are better left unlimited) but I think the connotations of "cover" ranging from protection to possession are good to keep in mind. Hmm — a look in a thesaurus might shed light here. From Apple's Dictionary app:

cover

verb:

• protect, shield, shelter; hide, conceal, veil.
• blanket, overlay, overspread, carpet, coat; literary mantle.
• deal with, consider, take in, include, involve, comprise, incorporate, embrace.
• mask, disguise, hide, camouflage, muffle, block out, stifle, smother.
• stand in for, fill in for, deputize for, take over from, relieve, take the place of, sit in for, understudy, hold the fort; informal sub for, pinch-hit for.
• pay (for), be enough for, fund, finance; pay back, make up for, offset.
• insure, protect, secure, underwrite, assure, indemnify.
• travel, journey, go, do, traverse.

noun:

• binding, jacket, dust jacket, dust cover, wrapper.
• bedding, bedclothes, sheets, blankets.
• shelter, protection, refuge, sanctuary, haven, hiding place.
• front, facade, smokescreen, screen, blind, camouflage, disguise, mask, cloak.

Food for thought! When she needs shelter, sure, he's there, but a smokescreen? Sometimes that, too, especially if she's more private by nature.

Now, I did remove a few lines that seem less applicable but, hey, maybe they're good, too (if only for a laugh):

verb:

• cake, coat, encrust, plaster, smother, daub, bedaub.
• report on, write about, describe, comment on, publish/broadcast details of.

noun:

• coating, coat, covering, layer, carpet, blanket, overlay, dusting, film, sheet, veneer, crust, skin, cloak, mantle, veil, pall, shroud.
• undergrowth, vegetation, greenery, woodland, trees, bushes, brush, scrub, plants; covert, thicket, copse.
• cover charge, entry charge, entrance fee, admission charge, price of admission.

I hope my woman doesn't find I'm just a crust stuck to her! Or that I'm vegetation, or that I broadcast her details (although my being her interface with the world is in some senses quite fitting). On the other hand, if her connection to me lends a coat or veneer that marks her as taken, that's cool. And if you've got to go through me to get to her, then price of admission seems to work okay, too.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I’ll try to post some on this when I’m back home. Lots to ponder . . . Or cover

 

[rustywest4]

Gotta go through me to get to her! She's mine!

 

[FollowingHim]

Following on from what @mystic pointed out, I think we have a tendency to overspiritualise things. Covering is a practical thing, ranging from the broadness of protection and provision to the narrow physical covering with your bedclothes (as Ruth requested, a request that was both real and figurative). If you were not offering a woman any practical protection / provision etc, in what way would you be covering her? You could claim you were giving her some sort of mystical spiritual "covering", but we could argue forever what it is as it isn't clearly explained in scripture. Best to stick to the practicalities.

On that note, yes in some situations today a woman is in serious trouble if she is not under a man @JimandMary - but given that persecution is by Muslims and is something that we would generally argue against, I don't see it as a valid positive argument for what righteous covering should be about. Obviously it's a very practical consideration for any woman in such a country, and if such persecution spread it would be very valid for women to seek covering for that reason. But it's not the place to start this discussion, in my opinion. It is just one narrow application of the need to protect a woman, as part of "covering" her, which itself is a much broader concept.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

From everything I’ve seen, the earthly application of a man protecting a woman is a very incomplete and limited representation of the extent of covering that is required of a faithful steward.

The story of Adam and Eve always comes to mind because it is the perfect example. One day, we as husbands will give account of everything done under our ‘tent’. Our children and wives will not be held accountable for this before the Judge. We will be giving account before our master. In Adam’s case, he tried to sidestep the accountability and scripture still records sin entering thru him. The antithesis to this account is the story of the second Adam who provides covering to all who will repent and trust Him to be their Adown/Advocate. He accepted accountability for any sins committed prior to and after “covenant” for anyone who will truly enter covenant with Him. Anyone under His covering will be represented before the Judge one day. As He has already provided forgiveness to them and payment for them, their many sins and transgressions are as if they never happened. He has truly provided the essential covering and protection and has given us a beautiful example as fathers and husbands to emulate and example.

Just a word of warning, be careful who and what you allow into covenant and under your covering. The Judge is at the door. James 5:9

 

[rockfox]

Thanks all!

I gather a sense of urgency about all this, like a woman is in bad straights who lacks a covering. Outside of Jim's Isaiah reference, which is a bit interpretive, is there a scripture that strongly points to this?

Isaiah 3:16
Moreover Adonai says:
“Because Tziyon’s women are so proud, walking with their heads in the air and throwing seductive glances, moving with mincing steps and jingling their anklets —

17
Adonai will strike the crown of the heads of Tziyon’s women with sores, and Adonai will expose their private parts.”

Except this simply points to their behavior, not their marital status. Although in light of Isaiah 4:1, which I see as the result of when said society repents, single uncovered women were certainly a big part of the problem.

But this idea that a non-married woman has no covering doesn't quite fit. Under the OT system, a woman was under her father until given in marriage and thereafter under her husband. Although, we see today many free women living apart from the authority of family or husband; they are certainly without covering. I can see how that fits Isaiah; it was a future prophecy and we fit the bill.

You could claim you were giving her some sort of mystical spiritual "covering", but we could argue forever what it is as it isn't clearly explained in scripture. Best to stick to the practicalities.

Mystical spiritual covering is the usage I was previously familiar with. But not in this context. It was an idea used by some American pastors of the more lording over or hero worship type.

 

[Cap]

It is my understanding that there is no law that requires that the animal sacrifices be stopped because they were only a representation of the greater sacrifice that is in the death and resurrection of the Son of God. Once that came they are not accepted by God. It's a spiritual concept of the law of sacrifice.

Spiritual concepts are important, even the spiritual concept of coverings. To dismiss them because one can't find a law someplace misses the point.

 

[FollowingHim]

The story of Adam and Eve always comes to mind because it is the perfect example. One day, we as husbands will give account of everything done under our ‘tent’. Our children and wives will not be held accountable for this before the Judge. We will be giving account before our master. In Adam’s case, he tried to sidestep the accountability and scripture still records sin entering thru him.

Which brings this back to a very practical point. It's not just some mystical spritual concept. It is about practical matters. Adam had a responsibility to lead / train / control himself and all in his "tent" including his wife. He failed, and was held accountable.

The covering isn't some magical thing that we give women just by virtue of being male. It is about what we actually, practically do. How we actually lead, protect, and provide for them.

If we don't do those things, we're not providing them a "covering" - because "covering" is just a collective way of referring to all those practical things.

 

[FollowingHim]

Note that looking at it from this angle is not dismissing a spiritual concept. Rather, it is actually considering that concept more seriously. Because spiritual concepts are important - and very practical.

The word "spirit" is the word for "breath" or "wind". Although in part a supernatural concept, it is one that has firm practical implications, that operates in the material world as much or even more than in the immaterial. When someone has a "spirit of fear", then they are genuinely, physically, scared. When the Spirit of God moves, there are real physical results. If something is "spiritual", then it is real. Very real. And something we can consider practically.

If a man gives a woman a covering, there will be real, practical implications of this. And those practical implications are the heart of the entire concept.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

The covering isn't some magical thing that we give women just by virtue of being male. It is about what we actually, practically do. How we actually lead, protect, and provide for them.

Exactly. The real shame will be when many of these women (like Eve) stand before the Judge and the man they hoped would cover them pulls an Adam. I think this is part of why God includes covenant breakers with this long list of sinners.
Romans 1:31&32
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

[rockfox]

Which brings this back to a very practical point. It's not just some mystical spritual concept. It is about practical matters. Adam had a responsibility to lead / train / control himself and all in his "tent" including his wife. He failed, and was held accountable.

The covering isn't some magical thing that we give women just by virtue of being male. It is about what we actually, practically do. How we actually lead, protect, and provide for them.

This reminds me of a conception many women have about marriage. They desire it for the social status or the resources but buck against the leadership of their husband. They want the image and benefits of marriage, without the actuality and responsibilities of it.

Men who treat their wife like their mommy or their roommate while failing to do the tough love steps to lead also fall into this trap. They're not a hedge of protection; more a picket fence. They look pretty and can (barely) keep kids in; but nothing dangerous out.

 

[Well loved wife]

This very concept of VV76 being the door keeper of our tent, the protection, my covering- and understanding what that implied in our home, in my life. I was convinced I needed to ask him to be my Adown. My husband, leader, head, he being accountable for my very actions or inaction, this terrified me- I didn’t want him to ‘pay for my wrong’ in our marriage. It made me examine my motives, my daily choices, am I willing to following him wherever God would lead...

 

[Verifyveritas76]

This concept of being accountable one day before The Judge is one of the reasons that I am convinced that part of a husbands role is to test those he is entrusted with. There are many ways that this can be done, and as long as it is done correctly the results will speak for themselves. Done incorrectly, a man will fail to bring about the transformation that God desires for each of his daughters, and will adulterate and pervert the example of God as the perfect husband and father.

This thread has the potential to be life altering in so many ways to those of us who have a western culture “Christian” bias. From the perspective of Covering, there is so much to think about and so many questions to ponder just on that topic alone. The addition of the Judge and an appointed time of accountability for the husband/father/steward of the home should initiate an entirely new perspective about who you are in the relationship and who each of us answer to.

I would challenge each of you not to simply engage this thread as you would other “normal” threads, but to give these topics much thought and dialogue with those in your home. Don’t just post! Dialogue! Much has been posted or alluded to by myself and @Well loved wife regarding our reformed vows and how God has done incredible things in our relationship in a remarkably short period. These topics were dead center of our conversations during that period and God used them greatly in both our lives.

 

[rejoicinghandmaid]

Much has been posted or alluded to by myself and @Well loved wife regarding our reformed vows and how God has done incredible things in our relationship in a remarkably short period. These topics were dead center of our conversations during that period and God used them greatly in both our lives.

I've heard both you and WellLovedWife mention your reformed vows. It has definitely intrigued me. I've wondered how different they might be from the traditional ones said at most weddings. The idea of not "renewing" your initial vows, but "rewriting" them is a much needed topic of discussion, I think. It's a novel thought and one I had never encountered until the 2 of you mentioned it in conversation. I'm sure your vows are very personal, but would you mind listing key components you purposefully imbedded in your "reformed" vows and why? What components did you purposefully remove and why? Perhaps there are others who would benefit from your decisions. I hope you will share.

 

[rejoicinghandmaid]

My husband, leader, head, he being accountable for my very actions or inaction, this terrified me- I didn’t want him to ‘pay for my wrong’ in our marriage. It made me examine my motives, my daily choices, am I willing to following him wherever God would lead...

I think this concept and realization is at the root of pure devotion and real love. I can see how it would change so much in how one views her covering and responds to that covering of Adoneship

 

[rejoicinghandmaid]

This concept of being accountable one day before The Judge is one of the reasons that I am convinced that part of a husbands role is to test those he is entrusted with. There are many ways that this can be done, and as long as it is done correctly the results will speak for themselves. Done incorrectly, a man will fail to bring about the transformation that God desires for each of his daughters, and will adulterate and pervert the example of God as the perfect husband and father.

I know we had quite an interesting conversation on this idea of "testing those which are entrusted to him" on the way home from retreat. I'm still puzzled as to how that testing might look or have format or shape other than the "No" to a request. How does a shepherd test a lamb in the flock. Does he do this with every lamb in his flock? Should this "testing" or proving process begin early in a relationship or be reserved for those only under covenant?

 

[rejoicinghandmaid]

Exactly. The real shame will be when many of these women (like Eve) stand before the Judge and the man they hoped would cover them pulls an Adam. I think this is part of why God includes covenant breakers with this long list of sinners.
Romans 1:31&32
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

This idea of keeping covenant from a Biblical perspective is so foreign to most of us Westerners. Would you mind rehearsing briefly what would constitute covenant breaking from the man's perspective? from the woman's perspective?

 

[rejoicinghandmaid]

It is my understanding that there is no law that requires that the animal sacrifices be stopped because they were only a representation of the greater sacrifice that is in the death and resurrection of the Son of God. Once that came they are not accepted by God. It's a spiritual concept of the law of sacrifice.

Spiritual concepts are important, even the spiritual concept of coverings. To dismiss them because one can't find a law someplace misses the point.

Would you consider "the spiritual concept of coverings" to be the idea of leading a wife in Bible study and an understanding of Scripture? I'm not sure I'm comprehending what the guys are meaning when they're speaking of "a spiritual covering".