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

[NickF]

I agree that kata when used in the Septuagint as a Hebrew substitute it can mean a literal covering. But that's only half of the word that your addressing. The other half of the word used for cover is G2572 - kalyptō. This word is used as a figurative covering for sin in both the OT and NT. It's used figuratively in the OT in many places in the Septuagint as well.

Strong's Definitions: κατακαλύπτω katakalýptō, kat-ak-al-oop'-to; from G2596 and G2572; to cover wholly, i.e. veil:—cover, hide

This is the the word we see used in verse 6 and verse 7.


Here are the two words that make it.

Kata which is a preposition and Kalypto which is a verb. The verb is what we see used figuratively often in the scripture.

Strong's Definitions: κατά katá, kat-ah'; a primary particle; (prepositionally) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case (genitive, dative or accusative) with which it is joined):—about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) × alone, among, and, × apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to touching), × aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, (charita-)bly, concerning, + covered, (dai-)ly, down, every, (+ far more) exceeding, × more excellent, for, from … to, godly, in(-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), … by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, × natural, of (up-)on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+ your) × own, + particularly, so, through(-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-)to(-gether, -ward), × uttermost, where(-by), with

Outline of Biblical Usage:

1. down from, through out
2. according to, toward, along

KJV Translation Count: 480x
The KJV translates Strongs G2596 in the following manner: according to (107x), after (61x), against (58x), in (36x), by (27x), daily (with G2250) (15x), as (11x), misc (165x).



Strong's Definitions: καλύπτω kalýptō, kal-oop'-to; akin to G2813 and G2928; to cover up (literally or figuratively):—cover, hide

Outline of Biblical Usage: to hide, veil to hinder the knowledge of a thing

KJV Translation Count: 8x The KJV translates Strongs G2572 in the following manner: cover (5x), hide (3x).

And you interpret from all of that... the word "husband".. K *thumbs up*

 

[James Pease]

And you interpret from all of that... the word "husband".. K *thumbs up*

Ruth 3
9And he saith, 'Who art thou?' and she saith, 'I am Ruth thy handmaid, and thou hast spread thy skirt over thy handmaid, for thou art a redeemer.'

Ezekiel 16
8¶And I pass over by thee, and I see thee, And lo, thy time is a time of loves, And I spread My skirt over thee, And I cover thy nakedness, And I swear to thee, and come in to a covenant with thee, An affirmation of the Lord Jehovah, And thou dost become Mine.

 

[Luke S]

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.


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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Thank you for clarifying your position. In my defense, it can be easy to miss something in 12+ pages of forum thread, so apologies if you had made this clearer earlier and I just missed it.

I as well hold the assembly view of the praying and prophesying because I believe that to be the context of the passage. While not necessarily a big deal by itself, it does lend us each to approach what's written very differently and come to different conclusions. Much like how we differ in seeing the "covering" as something someone can willy nilly take on and off (I don't see it this way), these differences will cause us to view the other's view as simply ridiculous. So, a lot of these questions I ask are not necessarily debate tactics, but honest inquisition of y'all's point of view.

 

[windblown]

as something someone can willy nilly take on and off

Headcovering is the exact opposite of being “willy nilly.”

 

[Luke S]

Headcovering is the exact opposite of being “willy nilly.”

Which is exactly my stance on the "man wearing a hat" side of things

 

[windblown]

Which is exactly my stance on the "man wearing a hat" side of things

Omg. Headcovering/Uncovering is the same thing. Two sides of one coin. There is nothing “willy nilly” about it. I don’t understand why you continue to make snide comments about a practice that so many of us employ then turn around and claim ignorance.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I as well hold the assembly view of the praying and prophesying because

Where in the entire passage is this context? It’s not there. You’re adding that.

Much like how we differ in seeing the "covering" as something someone can willy nilly take on and off (I don't see it this way)

We’re told when it has to be on, when praying or prophesying, so clearly it doesn’t have to be on the rest of the time. Or are you trying to add something else to scripture?

 

[Luke S]

Where in the entire passage is this context? It’s not there. You’re adding that.

We’re told when it has to be on, when praying or prophesying, so clearly it doesn’t have to be on the rest of the time. Or are you trying to add something else to scripture?

Looking at vs 2, then at vs 16-18, and verse 20, seems to put it in that same context.

As to the second point, because our approach to the context of the passage is different, we're going to see this point differently too.

 

[Luke S]

Omg. Headcovering/Uncovering is the same thing. Two sides of one coin. There is nothing “willy nilly” about it. I don’t understand why you continue to make snide comments about a practice that so many of us employ then turn around and claim ignorance.

I'm not trying to make snide comments. I fully agree conceptually that the "covering" that this passage is talking about is not "willy nilly". We're on the same interpretive page on that concept. We disagree on how that applies, though.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Looking at vs 2, then at vs 16-18, and verse 20, seems to put it in that same context.

As to the second point, because our approach to the context of the passage is different, we're going to see this point differently too.

Hold on a minute, I’m about to come back to this one in a little while. I have to finish putting a few nails in a few coffins in the other thread first.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I'm not trying to make snide comments. I fully agree conceptually that the "covering" that this passage is talking about is not "willy nilly". We're on the same interpretive page on that concept. We disagree on how that applies, though.

Words have meaning. There’s no way that two diametrically opposed views are “on the same page.” Just declare you position and man your post and stop trying to duck and weave.

 

[Luke S]

Words have meaning. There’s no way that two diametrically opposed views are “on the same page.” Just declare you position and man your post and stop trying to duck and weave.

I've already made my position clear, we may disagree on the external application, but we do still have some common ground, and there's nothing wrong with seeing that for what it is.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I've already made my position clear, we may disagree on the external application, but we do still have some common ground, and there's nothing wrong with seeing that for what it is.

We have no common ground on this issue. You’re just as wrong as you can be and not deny the verse is actually scripture. Be calm. I’ll be back here shortly. When I am we’ll wrap this one up for now. There’s not much left to prove here.

 

[Hisdaughter]

Now is a good point to stop and remember that this issue of headcovering is a deeply meaningful and important one to a significant number of women on the forum, and not just my wife.

This may be a fun debate for some of the men and lord knows we’ve all tried to be clever with varying degrees of success and failure, but this issue is the jumping off point in to submission for these women. When they took on this symbol their whole outlook changed. We might hear from some of them if we don’t make them think they’re going to be eviscerated for speaking up.

Make your point, come after me if you have the stones but let’s stow the petty meanness. It’s one thing to say you don’t think that’s what the verse is referring too, it’s quite another to start mocking the women who do it.

@windblown ‘s right @Luke S , your meme with the bucket was targeted at women who headcover, not the interpretation of the passage. It’s more bothersome because no one knows you, you didn’t participate in the debate and just started copying what other men had already done. Yes she’s my wife, yes I’m white knighting and in this particular instance it’s warranted.

This is me talking about why I cover. I cover bc as a widow it makes me feel like I am honoring my husband. Yes i am a girl with feelings. But also because at this point I have to work out my own salvation and Yah has made it clear that I should cover.

 

[JudahYAHites]

This is something that is commonly stated as a fact, but a recent discussion has shown it is not universally accepted as such. I think this would be profitable to tease out. To briefly summarise the points made in that discussion:


At this point, one problem may be that the word "covered" is undefined, and people may be talking at cross purposes as a result.

Question 1: What does the word "covering" mean, in the statement "every woman needs a covering"? What IS this covering?

Question 2: Does that word (or an equivalent) appear in scripture directly, or is this a theological term introduced later to explain a scriptural concept?

The previous conversation continued essentially using "covering" and "marriage" interchangeably:





Question 3: Are all women required to be covered (i.e. is it sinful for them not to be)? Or is it just advisable?

Question 4: Are all men required to give covering to at least one woman?

It has been interesting reading the interactions and debates especially regarding covering between @The Revolting Man and @James Pease

I am going to present what I say from a completely different viewpoint, understanding and experience.

From my lived understanding of hebraic culture a woman wears a head covering when she becomes the wife of a man. The head covering represents the fact that she is married and may also represent the man she is married to by the colours and pattern of the cloth, wedding rings are an external cultural introduction of pagan origin.

I will leave that there.

As for the general questions regarding covering posed by @FollowingHim I prefer to go back to the garden and the viewpoint of YAH that may bring clarity to the whole discussion from an alternative scriptural angle.

When YAH created the heavens and the earth and everything in it he said in our English translations

"...good"

However, after the creation of man and woman, blessing them, and the man naming and covenanting with the woman, YAH declared

"...very good"

Why is this even relevant one may ask, well, without going into any dictionaries concordances or a thesaurus, "good" in this context translates more accurately to functionality.

So, when we look at any issue from the perspective of our father in heaven I believe we should be looking from a perspective of functionality, anything outside of that is dysfunctional by definition.

So, regardless of our personal understanding of the text in 1 Corinthians 11, the functional order of YAH God is plainly stated in verse 3.

Ergo when a woman is outside of that order she is in a state of dysfunction whether or not the husband is the father the husband an uncle etc, if you want to refer to it as covering, so be it, then, without a "covering" a woman is in a state of dysfunction.

 

[Mark C]

So, when we look at any issue from the perspective of our father in heaven I believe we should be looking from a perspective of functionality, anything outside of that is dysfunctional by definition.

Interesting. I have frequently noted that the US "legal understanding" (from the perspective of lawyers, and, in particular things like warranty claims) is "suitability for fitness of purpose." In other words, it meets the Design Criteria; performs as intended.

It's the Way He Made Things...including us.

 

[Kerry Young]

View attachment 4122

I can testify that this was so me and my girls before I met Master.

 

[Mark C]

I am posting a teaching on Numbers 30 (et al) on this today, in the "Links of Interest," area:

Meat - Numbers 30 is about more than just vows

This is the teaching for parsha "Matot," from Shabbat Shalom Mesa, and the "Come out of her, My people," Ministry, presented without further comment here: https://hebrewnationonline.com/mark-call-parsha-matot-teaching-from-shabbat-shalom-mesa/ Alternative links: https://markniwot.com/?p=2586...

biblicalfamilies.org

 

[JudahYAHites]

Recent experiences, conversations and observations have brought me back to these questions.

Question 1: What does the word "covering" mean, in the statement "every woman needs a covering"? What IS this covering?

Every woman is created / designed to be with a man from cradle to grave, father (figure) to husband.
The woman's head covering is a symbol of the authority of her husband over her, the woman's covering IS the man, this is not so much scriptural as it is cultural, spiritual principles revealed through natural practical ways of living.

Question 2: Does that word (or an equivalent) appear in scripture directly, or is this a theological term introduced later to explain a scriptural concept?

I believe it is more a set apart cultural concept presented in scripture.
Isaac and Rebekah
Boaz and Ruth
Ahab and Jezebel

Question 3: Are all women required to be covered (i.e. is it sinful for them not to be)? Or is it just advisable?

Women should be covered (see question 1), it is not sin however it does contravene the order of the creator and his creation. There should be no woman living outside of her father's house until she is to be married

Question 4: Are all men required to give covering to at least one woman?

No, as Jesus stated some are born eunuchs some are made eunuchs.