Do all women need a "covering"? And what is a "covering"?

[Luke S]

Why is it so hard to accept that it is about authority and that authority is important enough to require a physical symbol?

Are there no physical symbols in the Faith? Is the a concept we’ve never encountered? Can tell things not be true at once?

The priest thing is silly. No one has done the homework to see if there’s anything there or not.

I have no issue with physical symbols, I just disagree that that's what this passage is requiring.

 

[NickF]

I have no issue with physical symbols, I just disagree that that's what this passage is requiring.

It’s fine if you disagree with clear written words and refuse to read them in context. Just don’t teach your out of context beliefs as doctrine. And don’t mock your elders who believe the words in scripture as they are written. It makes a feller look like a fool to mock clear scripture.

 

[windblown]

And I have been to a retreat..

Well, dang. Tell Samuel to make you a real person then.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I have no issue with physical symbols, I just disagree that that's what this passage is requiring.

It’s right there in black and white but maybe the best way to resolve this is to define what head means.

 

[MeganC]

I know this is not necessarily Scriptural but when it comes to modesty or even head coverings I am much more comfortable with humility.

As in be modest but not in such a way that you attract attention.

Or if you must wear a head covering then wear something that does not draw attention to you.

Why?

Because I believe that the spirit of Matthew 23:5 applies to women as much as it applies to men:

Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long

The point being is to be obedient without bragging about it.

 

[steve]

It’s easy to be a bit judgmental about how headcoverings are worn, (I’ve had that particular merit badge for a good while) but it can be very interesting which doors get opened by different styles.
Just sayin that ministry to some of the Islamic community is much more accepted when the style is more severe.

 

[PeteR]

And for the record, if you’re theological argument can fit in a meme then you have a stupid argument.

Maybe so, but that exchange was hilarious!

 

[steve]

Maybe so, but that exchange was hilarious!

Ahem, you are not helping here!

 

[steve]

 

[Luke S]

It’s right there in black and white but maybe the best way to resolve this is to define what head means.

And that's what I think verse 3 does for us.

Could you clarify a few points for me though? I find y'all's viewpoint that the passage is solely about physical attire a bit confusing when played out --

If this is about authority, then why is it only required when praying and prophesying? Does the woman take off her authority when she is done praying? By the same measure, what authority is a man symbolizing while wearing a hat?

When a widow puts on a head covering to pray, who's authority is she symbolizing?

If a head covering is a physical symbol of authority then a man should never be wearing one and a woman should always be wearing one, no?

 

[Luke S]

Well, dang. Tell Samuel to make you a real person then.

Lol, let's give it a shot, then!

@FollowingHim

Samuel, youve been summoned!

 

[Luke S]

It’s fine if you disagree with clear written words and refuse to read them in context. Just don’t teach your out of context beliefs as doctrine. And don’t mock your elders who believe the words in scripture as they are written. It makes a feller look like a fool to mock clear scripture.

We disagree on what the passage is teaching. From either side of the argument, the opposing view will appear to be guilty of what youve just ascribed to me above.

And I haven't mocked either one of you. I've chosen a humourous way to point out what I perceive to be flaws in your argument. If my perceptions are false, then, please, I invite you to elaborate and explain why they're not the case!

 

[NickF]

We disagree on what the passage is teaching. From either side of the argument, the opposing view will appear to be guilty of what youve just ascribed to me above.

And I haven't mocked either one of you. I've chosen a humourous way to point out what I perceive to be flaws in your argument. If my perceptions are false, then, please, I invite you to elaborate and explain why they're not the case!

Since you don’t know the definition of the word I’ll copy and paste it here for ya!

mockery​

noun​

mock·ery ˈmä-k(ə-)rē
ˈmȯ-

plural mockeries
1
: insulting or contemptuous action or speech : DERISION
laying himself open to the jeers and mockeries of his rebellious subjects—E. A. Freeman
2
: a subject of laughter, derision, or sport
making him turn himself into a merry mockery of all he had once held dear—O. St. John Gogarty
3
a
: a counterfeit appearance : IMITATION
if it was not a man it was a huge and grotesque mockery of man—E. R. Burroughs
b
: an insincere, contemptible, or impertinent (see IMPERTINENT sense 1a) imitation
makes a mockery of justice
4
: something ridiculously or impudently (see IMPUDENT sense 1) unsuitable
in her bitterness she felt that all rejoicing was mockery—George Eliot

Definition of MOCKERY

insulting or contemptuous action or speech : derision; a subject of laughter, derision, or sport; a counterfeit appearance : imitation… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Luke S]

Since you don’t know the definition of the word I’ll copy and paste it here for ya!

mockery​

noun​

mock·ery ˈmä-k(ə-)rē
ˈmȯ-

plural mockeries
1
: insulting or contemptuous action or speech : DERISION
laying himself open to the jeers and mockeries of his rebellious subjects—E. A. Freeman
2
: a subject of laughter, derision, or sport
making him turn himself into a merry mockery of all he had once held dear—O. St. John Gogarty
3
a
: a counterfeit appearance : IMITATION
if it was not a man it was a huge and grotesque mockery of man—E. R. Burroughs
b
: an insincere, contemptible, or impertinent (see IMPERTINENT sense 1a) imitation
makes a mockery of justice
4
: something ridiculously or impudently (see IMPUDENT sense 1) unsuitable
in her bitterness she felt that all rejoicing was mockery—George Eliot

Definition of MOCKERY

insulting or contemptuous action or speech : derision; a subject of laughter, derision, or sport; a counterfeit appearance : imitation… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

And I fully agree that I mocked y'all's point of view as perceived. Where did I mock either of y'all personally?

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

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.

Not arguing against your point necessarily, but my question is if the passage is not referring to a physical covering, but rather authority, then why is the man told not to have his head covered. Remember that the head of man is Christ, so is the man not to be under the authority of Christ when he prays? The authority element doesn’t seem to hold solid as the theme here.

 

[LDremoved]

And I fully agree that I mocked y'all's point of view as perceived. Where did I mock either of y'all personally?

As a woman who wears a head covering at times, I thought the bucket meme was funny. However I wouldn't trust my sense of humor, it doesn't go over well on here at times lol

 

[Joleneakamama]

As a woman who wears a head covering at times, I thought the bucket meme was funny. However I wouldn't trust my sense of humor, it doesn't go over well on here at times lol

I have also covered my head before with full intention of it symbolizing my submission to my hubby. The problem is my husband does not want me to wear a headcovering.

I get you on sense of humor. Our family's sense of humor is also not always appreciated.

 

[The Revolting Man]

And that's what I think verse 3 does for us.

Could you clarify a few points for me though? I find y'all's viewpoint that the passage is solely about physical attire a bit confusing when played out --

If this is about authority, then why is it only required when praying and prophesying? Does the woman take off her authority when she is done praying? By the same measure, what authority is a man symbolizing while wearing a hat?

When a widow puts on a head covering to pray, who's authority is she symbolizing?

If a head covering is a physical symbol of authority then a man should never be wearing one and a woman should always be wearing one, no?

Alright you have to read what people write if you want to engage.

I have said repeatedly that verses 4-7 are about a physical head covering. The entire passage, through about verse 13 does deal with authority but as a way to explain verses 4-7.

What you can’t deny is that the whole passage has as much to do with women’s hair as it does authority. But let me do this point by point.

If this is about authority, then why is it only required when praying and prophesying? Does

Because that’s what it says. We don’t understand vast swaths of the mechanics of our faith. Why a blue and white cord? You don’t know. You just do it. Why would you have to understand the wherefore and whyfore of this?

Does the woman take off her authority when she is done praying?

This is actually the weakness in your position. If the covering is authority then the woman can take off her authority when she’s done praying. In fact under your interpretation a woman only has to be under authority when praying and even that’s not a command. Why are you asking me this? I think this is why you’re so blindingly wrong on this. Whatever the covering is it can be taken off without shame. Therefore it can not be authority. Are you sure you understand the position you’re defending?

By the same measure, what authority is a man symbolizing while wearing a hat?

And again, if the covering is authority then what authority can a man put on and off without shame? It’s not Christ, I can assure you that.

When a widow puts on a head covering to pray, who's authority is she symbolizing?

If a widow has no covering how can she pray at all under your interpretation? She can’t. Every question you ask boomerangs back on your position. Now I personally think the passage only applies to married women. As far as I’m concerned a widow can do as she pleases with her head. If it does apply to her though I assume she’s symbolizing Christ’s authority.

If a head covering is a physical symbol of authority then a man should never be wearing one and a woman should always be wearing one, no?

No, because it doesn’t say that. It says while praying and prophesying. Why are you trying to add to scripture? Something about praying and prophesying requires married women or possibly all women to symbolize that they are under authority. And it is equally important for men to symbolize that they are not under authority.

Think about that, if the covering in the case of the man is Christ then how could he ever not be covered? It’s a nonsensical claim in its face.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Alright you authority types, @James Pease and @Luke S , I’m going to end this so not even you two can disagree. If 1 Corinthians 11 is only about authority then authority is optional. According to the passage a woman is not commanded to be under authority. She can be if she wants to be, it would be a shame if she wasn’t but that’s all.

So your attempt to force “headship” in fact opens an escape hatch from “headship”. So tell me then, is authority and headship optional for a woman? If you say no then 1 Corinthians 11, at least verse 4-7, can not be about authority.

What say you? If you can speak with your own petard running up underneath your rib cage.

 

[James Pease]

Alright you authority types, @James Pease and @Luke S , I’m going to end this so not even you two can disagree. If 1 Corinthians 11 is only about authority then authority is optional. According to the passage a woman is not commanded to be under authority. She can be if she wants to be, it would be a shame if she wasn’t but that’s all.

So your attempt to force “headship” in fact opens an escape hatch from “headship”. So tell me then, is authority and headship optional for a woman? If you say no then 1 Corinthians 11, at least verse 4-7, can not be about authority.

What say you? If you can speak with your own petard running up underneath your rib cage.

Once again. I see verses 4-6 as praying and prophesying in the Assembly. I know you don't.
I see verses 7-15 as general instructions.

So to me it teaches that a man while praying or prophesying should not have authority on his head and a woman while praying or prophesying should have authority covering her head. You don't think this is the assembly because you don't understand what prophesying is used for.

Does this mean that a man should put authority between him and his head? No verses 7-15 show this clearly. Does this mean a woman should take off her authority? No verses 7-15 shows this.

When should a woman's head be shaved?
In context of verses 4-6, when she refuses to be covered while praying and prophesying in the Assembly.

Do I personally think all women should have authority on their head? Yes I do and so does verse 10. Does that mean we shave everyone that doesn't? No, I don't believe so.