It is shameful for a woman to be uncovered

[PeteR]

For months, I have had the phrase "it is shameful for a woman to be uncovered" ringing in my head. It has been a general idea/thought that I really need to sit down and flesh out, but just haven't done it yet. What I know is that in Scripture a woman was either in her father's house or that of her husband. There is no place outside of that for her honorable existence.

Today, with an abundance of single moms, divorcees (whether by their choice or not) and more young widows than we know, the government becomes the 'covering,' but this is not what Scripture or Biblical life demanded.

This week, someone sent me an article about head covering and asked my thoughts. While I am not sure the author quite makes the case for a cloth or 'symbolic' head covering, she certainly makes a solid case for a woman to be under headship. In fact, it is very specific about the created order and the roles or places of man and woman.

This morning, as I was re-reading James Wesley Stivers' sixth chapter in Eros Made Sacred, he shocked me when he said that it is "evil for a woman to lack headship." Whoa! Not just shameful... but "evil." Then, I read his reference and it made perfect sense.

1 Cor. 11:3 says, "But I want you to understand that Messiah is the head of every man and man is the head of a woman and God is the head of Messiah..."

The point, if a man rejects the headship of Messiah/Christ, then he is walking in sin and judgment. It is an "evil" thing, not just 'shameful.'

Stivers' exact quote is, "A woman without a man as her head - either father or husband - is in a state of anarchy. It is as evil for a woman to lack headship as it is for a man to lack the headship of Christ, or for Christ to lack the headship of God (1 Corinthians 11:3)."

A caveat: I do realize that the lack of polygynous men and abundance of Godly single ladies as well as cultural pressures and moors create a tough situation for single ladies, but this demonstrates that all of us should be ever more intentional in seeking the Father and asking Him to change and mold us to His will so that we can righteously walk out His plan in our lives, whether husband, FW or SW, etc.

 

[steve]

Boom
Females were not created to simply be independent beings. A hard pill to swallow in today’s society.

 

[Pacman]

Similar thought has been on my mind. Thank you for articulating it so well.

 

[Cap]

How does Mary and Martha and the other single women that took care the Son of God and what was their earthly covering?.

And also raises the question of why the Son of God gave his mother to John. It appears it wasn't to be a wife.

And what about brother/sister relationships as coverings?

 

[PeteR]

How does Mary and Martha and the other single women that took care the Son of God and what was their earthly covering?.

And also raises the question of why the Son of God gave his mother to John. It appears it wasn't to be a wife.

And what about brother/sister relationships as coverings?

Good questions....

Who says Mary and Martha were single? Supposing they were, Lazarus may well have been their head. Scripture does tend to speak primarily to fathers and husbands, however, I am fairly certain that the eldest son had a responsibility for the family in the absence of the father, so he would have headship duties to sisters who were not covered by a husband.

Same for Mary. Yeshua placed her in the care of John, not as a wife, but as a 'daughter' or widow to be taken in for headship (provision/protection) in a non-sexual role. (Older widows v younger widows in Pauline commentary)

 

[Cap]

Good questions....

Who says Mary and Martha were single? Supposing they were, Lazarus may well have been their head. Scripture does tend to speak primarily to fathers and husbands, however, I am fairly certain that the eldest son had a responsibility for the family in the absence of the father, so he would have headship duties to sisters who were not covered by a husband.

Same for Mary. Yeshua placed her in the care of John, not as a wife, but as a 'daughter' or widow to be taken in for headship (provision/protection) in a non-sexual role. (Older widows v younger widows in Pauline commentary)

Maybe Mary and Martha were married but wouldn't thier husbands be more important than Lazarus in the regard for covering?

So a brother/sister relationship would still fall under the father/daughter covering, correct?

 

[steve]

I have said it before, I believe that the female side of Adam was removed, not just a bone.
Neither is whole without the other.

Is it evil for a male to be alone?
Yes, if he rejects YHWH’s design.
No, if he is consciously attempting to rectify the situation.

IMO

 

[PeteR]

Maybe Mary and Martha were married but wouldn't thier husbands be more important than Lazarus in the regard for covering?

Of course. The story doesn't say. They were all from Bethany and all adored Yeshua. Maybe they were all under Lazarus' roof, maybe they were all part of a multi-unit family dwelling, maybe they lived just down the road and were there when Yeshua came... unimportant speculations. Bottom line, they were covered and not operating independently.

So a brother/sister relationship would still fall under the father/daughter covering, correct?

In the absence of a husband or father, yes. If husband or father are alive and capable, then they have the authority. None can usurp the authority of the primary. Order of primacy is husband, father, brother.

 

[rockfox]

Widows would be the women who find themselves without a covering [presumably] due to no fault of their own. But they can put themselves back under the covering of their father. In the OT you had Levitate marriage.

Brother could work, but I don't think this is a case where a woman should pick whichever she likes the best.

"it is shameful for a woman to be uncovered"

Would also explain 'cover our shame' in Isaiah 4.

While I am not sure the author quite makes the case for a cloth or 'symbolic' head covering,

As far as interpretation of Paul, she wasn't trying to. The main question was Torah. So far as I can tell, a cloth headcovering is implicit in the OT; with several references to it's use. It's a very ancient Semitic practice. But I don't know that the Torah ever commands it; not like Paul does in 1 Cor 11.

 

[Mojo]

I will try to find a link later but I heard a brief excerpt on the radio that noted that single, Millenial women (30 and under?) are one of the largest, and perhaps largest, demographic to openly support socialism in the US.

This demographic is delaying and refusing marriage as an independence from the shackles of the "toxic male" but intuitively still wants an authority figure to provide protection and provision. It's just a different version of a "Big Brother" watching over them.

 

[Joleneakamama]

A caveat: I do realize that the lack of polygynous men

That may be better rendered responsible men. I realize that there are tons of factors in what is wrong in the modern world...but too many men are unwilling to commit, and really don't want responsibility. I get that good men are the norm here at Biblical Families....but let's not forget they have already been sorted so to speak out of the masses.

 

[steve]

I will try to find a link later but I heard a brief excerpt on the radio that noted that single, Millenial women (30 and under?) are one of the largest, and perhaps largest, demographic to openly support socialism in the US.

This demographic is delaying and refusing marriage as an independence from the shackles of the "toxic male" but intuitively still wants an authority figure to provide protection and provision. It's just a different version of a "Big Brother" watching over them.

They truly want the government to be Daddy.
A daddy that they can totally manipulate, but who will always rescue them.
Welfare
Abortion
Housing
Snap food program
SSDI

 

[Pacman]

That may be better rendered responsible men. I realize that there are tons of factors in what is wrong in the modern world...but too many men are unwilling to commit, and really don't want responsibility. I get that good men are the norm here at Biblical Families....but let's not forget they have already been sorted so to speak out of the masses.

It’s also worth pointing out that even if someone believes poly to be “wrong” that doesn’t change the fact that they can still provide a covering. Why couldn’t those men provide guidance and authority while helping her find a husband? I actually know a man who is doing just that right now and he understands poly but doesn’t feel that the father wants him to take this particular woman for himself...

 

[Joleneakamama]

Totally true @Pacman!

My hubby tried to protect and guide his sisters after their dad was gone. When they don't value that, or trust his judgement the man can really do little.
But that is in my opinion when the shame is rightfully on the woman, and she has to live with her own decisions.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

I think there are some nuances here I'd like to take a stab at.

Same for Mary. Yeshua placed her in the care of John, not as a wife, but as a 'daughter' or widow to be taken in for headship (provision/protection) in a non-sexual role. (Older widows v younger widows in Pauline commentary)

Jesus' words were "Woman behold thy son" and "Behold thy mother". He places Mary into John's care as a son cares for his mother. Which is to say, I have a difficult time reading much headship a man has over his own mother.

Also, Paul's instructions were to honor widows who are over 60 and have fulfilled various other requirements. His advice for the under 60 crowd was to remarry, and the over 60 crowd to just collect their paycheck from the church. He doesn't seem overly concerned with providing them with male headship.

I hope I can make it out of this thread without being called a feminist, but it appears that a woman can, at least, outgrow her need for male headship. More to the point:

But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge.

Which tells me that once they've begun the Godly Widow's lifestyle of continuing in prayer and supplication night and day, she has begun a higher ministry of serving Christ and attending to Him, and He will take it ill if she steps down from that to seek 'male headship' from some other man.

I do truly believe male headship is important, and necessary, for most women, most of the time. But if it's an actual sin to be without headship then Paul's advice here:

However, if someone thinks he is acting inappropriately toward his betrothed, and if she is beyond her youth and they ought to marry, let him do as he wishes; he is not sinning; they should get married. But the man who is firmly established in his heart and under no constraint, with control over his will and resolve in his heart not to marry the virgin, he will do well. So then, he who marries the virgin does well, but he who does not marry her does even better.

is just absolutely reckless. "does even better?" I don't think so. By my measurement he'd be sinning by denying her headship (knowing that her father won't live forever), and very uncharitably so because the law is clear that she was not free to seek marriage to someone else while being betrothed to him.

Edit: Ok actually, even though Paul says the guy would be doing even better than marrying: in the same situation I'd feel like a complete tool for exactly the reasons I've outlined, minus the sin bit.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

1 Cor. 11:3 says, "But I want you to understand that Messiah is the head of every man and man is the head of a woman and god is the head of Messiah..."

The point, if a man rejects the headship of Messiah/Christ, then he is walking in sin and judgment. It is an "evil" thing, not just 'shameful.'

Stivers' exact quote is, "A woman without a man as her head - either father or husband - is in a state of anarchy. It is as evil for a woman to lack headship as it is for a man to lack the headship of Christ, or for Christ to lack the headship of God (1 Corinthians 11:3)."

I totally agree with this point though I hadnt connected the dots before. This understanding is what I believe will be the catalyst for an Isaiah 4:1 society.

 

[Joleneakamama]

However, if someone thinks he is acting inappropriately toward his betrothed, and if she is beyond her youth and they ought to marry, let him do as he wishes; he is not sinning; they should get married. But the man who is firmly established in his heart and under no constraint, with control over his will and resolve in his heart not to marry the virgin, he will do well. So then, he who marries the virgin does well, but he who does not marry her does even better.

Paul's advice is rather different depending on which of the many versions of the bible you read. The kjv we have renders it differently then the one you quoted, and actually could be twisted by someone looking for validation to marry their daughter.

For an eye opening look at how many different translations there can be to a verse go here.https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-36.htm

It takes a lot of study and cross reference to make it all add up.

I like the idea if a woman outgrowing the need for headship on one hand, but when it is recognized as a blessing and provision I think who would want to be without?

Perhaps a widow who has married and raised a family has "paid her dues" and could choose for herself how best to serve God and others.
The thought of my sons trying to make decisions for me is less appealing somehow then my husband.

The bottom line that is probably the same in all versions is that the woman was made for the man. A woman without a man is then not doing what she was created for.

 

[steve]

Jesus' words were "Woman behold thy son" and "Behold thy mother". He places Mary into John's care as a son cares for his mother. Which is to say, I have a difficult time reading much headship a man has over his own mother.

In Western society, your assumption would make sense.
But ask yourself, why did Yeshua feel the need to do what he did?

Hint: because with Yeshua being removed from the scene it was necessary.
(When people read headship, they see “power over”. In reality it’s about responsibility for what you have headship over.)

 

[Slumberfreeze]

That's interesting @Joleneakamama , I'll have to look more closely at those verses. I do hate resting my doctrines on a mistranslation...

I think who would want to be without?

I have some conjecture based on my limited experience. I've had a number of 'mountain top' experiences where I have experienced in some small ways the presence of God. When I'm up there, I don't want to come down, but I inevitably have to. My conjecture is at some point (some time after 60, I suppose...) a person in close fellowship with God no longer 'has to' come down. Don't get me wrong, I think I'm amazing, and for sure Rainy doesn't want a life without me; but I know the presence of Jesus beats me by a long shot. If in 30 years or so I kick off, it might be preferable for her to be taken care of by my children and know more fully what I've experienced without being distracted by a man.

The thought of my sons trying to make decisions for me is less appealing somehow then my husband.

I heard that. Somewhere between what you and @steve said I have some thoughts brewing. I have to stew some.

 

[Paulsen]

I think there are some nuances here I'd like to take a stab at.



Jesus' words were "Woman behold thy son" and "Behold thy mother". He places Mary into John's care as a son cares for his mother. Which is to say, I have a difficult time reading much headship a man has over his own mother.

Also, Paul's instructions were to honor widows who are over 60 and have fulfilled various other requirements. His advice for the under 60 crowd was to remarry, and the over 60 crowd to just collect their paycheck from the church. He doesn't seem overly concerned with providing them with male headship.

I hope I can make it out of this thread without being called a feminist, but it appears that a woman can, at least, outgrow her need for male headship. More to the point:

But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge.

Which tells me that once they've begun the Godly Widow's lifestyle of continuing in prayer and supplication night and day, she has begun a higher ministry of serving Christ and attending to Him, and He will take it ill if she steps down from that to seek 'male headship' from some other man.

I do truly believe male headship is important, and necessary, for most women, most of the time. But if it's an actual sin to be without headship then Paul's advice here:

However, if someone thinks he is acting inappropriately toward his betrothed, and if she is beyond her youth and they ought to marry, let him do as he wishes; he is not sinning; they should get married. But the man who is firmly established in his heart and under no constraint, with control over his will and resolve in his heart not to marry the virgin, he will do well. So then, he who marries the virgin does well, but he who does not marry her does even better.

is just absolutely reckless. "does even better?" I don't think so. By my measurement he'd be sinning by denying her headship (knowing that her father won't live forever), and very uncharitably so because the law is clear that she was not free to seek marriage to someone else while being betrothed to him.

Edit: Ok actually, even though Paul says the guy would be doing even better than marrying: in the same situation I'd feel like a complete tool for exactly the reasons I've outlined, minus the sin bit.

I see what you are saying but it seems that you may be setting up a false dichotomy unintentionally. In the situations you describe a woman is either living under Christ's headship (Male covering) or a husbands headship (Male covering). I don't see any situation where Paul condones a woman living with no Male covering.