• 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.

An alternative take on head coverings

IshChayil

IshChayil

Seasoned Member
Real Person*
Male
Admin note: This is a fork from the mia discussion thread located here.
-------

If anyone is interested to hear a great, deep cultural and historical analysis of the headcovering in the verse @andrew references,
here is a really neat eye-opener discussion about this topic based on some peer reviewed work on the Greek terms. The scholar is Dr. Michael Heiser.
Click play at the top of the page, Heiser likes to share scholarly stuff with us laymen so he presents it in an understandable way. He illuminates the verse about headcoverings using knowledge of Grecko-Roman culture and what was considered "science" back in the day by Hippocrates and others...
Naked Bible podcast, women headcovering and Testicles
 
Last edited:
IshChayil said:
If anyone is interested to hear a great, deep cultural and historical analysis of the headcovering in the verse @andrew references,
here is a really neat eye-opener discussion about this topic based on some peer reviewed work on the Greek terms. The scholar is Dr. Michael Heiser.
Click play at the top of the page, Heiser likes to share scholarly stuff with us laymen so he presents it in an understandable way. He illuminates the verse about headcoverings using knowledge of Grecko-Roman culture and what was considered "science" back in the day by Hippocrates and others...
Naked Bible podcast, women headcovering and Testicles
Click to expand...

That was the most bizarre thing I've heard in a very long time Ish. Why the hell would anyone base their life around a book that is so stupid as to base it's claims about universal, ultimate and God breathed truth on the very sketchy medical theories of the Greco-Romans? If that's the best way to explain away headcovering then all I can say is that would then be the single greatest argument in support of headcovering I
I've heard yet. If that's the best argument that some can come up with to disprove it then it must be pretty ironclad. You say this guy is a scholar? You may start to understand my disdain for the class. But let me point out just one of the many absurdities here. IF Romans is really commanding women to cover their genitals during praying and prophesying, it is then also commanding men to uncover theirs. I think we just had a thread about this topic recently, it was the nudism thread.
 
andrew said:
Zec, I don't see that as being opposite/oppositional/opposed as much as being complementary. We're on the same team.

But ultimately leadership is a top-down affair, or it's not leadership, it's being a hireling, paid to tell people what they want to hear. You figure out what God wants you to do and plug in where He tells you to plug in, then get to work. All I'm sayin.
Click to expand...

Well you know as well as anyone that I have certain triggers that launch me off into very emotionally laden paroxysms so acknowledging that I may be veering far afield from the actual discussion but now wanting to concede if I'm on target I will simply disengage at this point rather than start a tirade that we've all heard before and that even I get a little bored of occasionally. Plus, Ish just lit a bonfire in a fuel depot and I want to go fling nitroglycerin on it.
 
ZecAustin said:
That was the most bizarre thing I've heard in a very long time Ish. Why the hell would anyone base their life around a book that is so stupid as to base it's claims about universal, ultimate and God breathed truth on the very sketchy medical theories of the Greco-Romans? If that's the best way to explain away headcovering then all I can say is that would then be the single greatest argument in support of headcovering I
I've heard yet. If that's the best argument that some can come up with to disprove it then it must be pretty ironclad. You say this guy is a scholar? You may start to understand my disdain for the class. But let me point out just one of the many absurdities here. IF Romans is really commanding women to cover their genitals during praying and prophesying, it is then also commanding men to uncover theirs. I think we just had a thread about this topic recently, it was the nudism thread.
Click to expand...
Darn you @ZecAustin, I wasn’t going to listen to it, but after that critique I have to :mad:
 
ZecAustin said:
That was the most bizarre thing I've heard in a very long time Ish. Why the hell would anyone base their life around a book that is so stupid as to base it's claims about universal, ultimate and God breathed truth on the very sketchy medical theories of the Greco-Romans? If that's the best way to explain away headcovering then all I can say is that would then be the single greatest argument in support of headcovering I
I've heard yet. If that's the best argument that some can come up with to disprove it then it must be pretty ironclad. You say this guy is a scholar?
Click to expand...
Yes, a famous evangelical scholar and he only draws from peer-reviewed articles. As a King james guy you should appreciate that this guy went through and mapped every single word from the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek to each word/phrase of the entire King James bible making it possible for King James lovers to use software to immediately discover underlying Hebrew and Greek words according to the versions of texts used in the King James tradition. Quite a scholar indeed.
Maybe give it a listen again after you've simmered down a bit brother. My intent in sharing wasn't to cause dispute but to share a neat breakthrough which sheds cultural light on these verses. Paul wasn't a 21st century scientist; when G-d didn't give direct revelation He saw things as other learned men of the day and Hippocrates was no dumby and his work was quite available in the day.

You wrote "If that's the best argument that some can come up with to disprove it [headcovering]..."
This is a colossal misunderstanding of the podcast/article and my reason for sharing. I like headcoverings. The scope of the podcast is in dealing with Paul's claiming it's a shame for a woman to have her head uncovered and to have short hair and a shame for a man to have long hair. Since we have Nazaarites who were extra holy and many think Yeshua had long hair, there's another reason. Take a breath, nobody is trying to take away headcoverings for ladies, Dr. Heiser included. not the point.

more on culture and context:
We have other verses that say it's' a shame for a man to cover his head, yet Western Judeo-Christian culture allows baseball hats, and Jews wear funny hats, what's up? He's writing to a culture where a man covering his head was part of cultic worship of a local deity. Understanding direct audience culture TOTALLY matters in many places in the bible for us to properly interpret what's going on. Otherwise scripture would contradict itself; and it doesn't. (you can't say someone can be more holy by being a Nazarite then say long hair on dudes is a shame..that's a contradiction if you divorce it from differing cultural contexts).

windblown said:
How I wish we had a blowing my brains out emoji. Just this once.
Click to expand...
haha, yeah really amazing insights. I have to thank @FollowingHim for turning me onto this scholar over a year ago.
Truly wonderful find, this scholar I mean.
afterthought, I'm not saying women shouldn't cover their head...in Jewish culture a married woman does cover her head and I like it; it's just for different reasons than the Greeks did.
 
Last edited:
ZecAustin said:
Well you know as well as anyone that I have certain triggers that launch me off into very emotionally laden paroxysms so acknowledging that I may be veering far afield from the actual discussion but now wanting to concede if I'm on target I will simply disengage at this point rather than start a tirade that we've all heard before and that even I get a little bored of occasionally. Plus, Ish just lit a bonfire in a fuel depot and I want to go fling nitroglycerin on it.
Click to expand...
Sorry Zec no intent to light a bonfire.
As a some Jewish guy once sang... "We didn't start the fire...it was always burning since the world was turning..."

I started a new thread to deal with the issue: Biblical Families: Divine inspiration, what is it?
Feel free to dump your fury, well maybe we can keep it toned down a bit and just say your sterno can over there :) You're more than welcome to chime in
 
Asforme&myhouse said:
I think those guys are poly theistic. Did you notice them mention the many “deities” in the Old Testament?
Click to expand...
Oh this is a misunderstanding, trust me, they are evangelicals.
Quite famous and published. He's an Old Testament Hebrew and Ancient languages scholar. By deities, they mean the "bnei elohim" (sons of G-d) mentioned sometimes in the bible. The created beings, made by G-d who were present with Him when he made the world "let us make man in our own image" He's not talking to the trinity, no need for that.
The Genesis 6:4, and the world view as captured by Enochian and other 2nd temple Judaism literature. Judaism, decidedly not polytheistic used these terms as well in that time period.

So when Dr. Heiser says Paul is concerned about "the angels" when he says regarding women's headcovering, "and also the angels, the concern is the "other sons of G-d" who fell in Gen 6:4; Paul is concerned it may happen again. English doesn't express supernatural beings in the same way as Hebrew. IN Hebrew we have the world ʾelōhīm rendered "G-d" or "gods" in context. The problem is this is not exactly what it means. When the witch at Endor raised Samuel, she said "I see ʾelōhīm" to which the unshocked Saul says "what does he look like?" then he knows it's Samuel's spirit. Sometimes his host, the laymen, is less careful with the English terms.
So when they say "deities" they mean "watchers" aramaic ʾirīn the sons of G-d who were allotted as principalities to rule the nations.
It's also why Paul refers to not just demons but "principalities" this is Greek speak for "watchers", i.e. sons of G-d who rebelled.
They certainly are not polytheists.

Look the guy is well known here are some of his books:
I Dare you Not to Bore Me with the Bible
Supernatural
The Unseen Realm
Reversing Hermon

Fiction:
The Portent
The Facade

He's been a guest on many Christian TV shows on the Pentecostal side as well as on the Baptist side of things. He's well recognized as the real deal.
He's also got a slew of teachings on youtube like 1o myths of Bible study which is short and pithy.
 
Oh ok I see. I recently heard a teaching (I can’t recall the guy’s name) from a guy at the “Solid Rock” church in the PNW, where he was teaching that there are many gods. He was teaching that G-d is just the most powerful of the gods and sits at the head of the god’s council table... and he wasn’t joking. That’s why I was concerned.
 
@IshChayil, I for one enjoy the opportunity to explore thoughts that stretch the mind. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that God said He would save me, and that I would assume means to include crazy talk. But, I like to consider things just to see what may reveal other things. Who knows, if they thought that way thousands of years ago, what are we thinking today that people a thousand years from now will think we were messed up.

The thing that interest me about this though, is what is the spiritual implications? There most be something connected to the spiritual world that was important enough for this be interpreted this way.
 
I don't have an opinion on the translation. But on the context, I agree with this:

andrew said:
My point is that the fact that Paul's choice of words is to our way of understanding Greek 'ambiguous' may be grounded in the fact that polygamy was not at issue because of who he was talking to. If he had intended to unilaterally and without explanation limit men to one wife, he could have said so more clearly. And if he had intended to promote polygamy, he could have said so more clearly. He simply didn't say.
Click to expand...

He may have had no problem with poly husbands being elders; but they did not exist in that culture so it was not in mind. He just wanted to be sure they were a husband and was still with their wife.
 
IshChayil said:
Yes, a famous evangelical scholar and he only draws from peer-reviewed articles. As a King james guy you should appreciate that this guy went through and mapped every single word from the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek to each word/phrase of the entire King James bible making it possible for King James lovers to use software to immediately discover underlying Hebrew and Greek words according to the versions of texts used in the King James tradition. Quite a scholar indeed.
Maybe give it a listen again after you've simmered down a bit brother. My intent in sharing wasn't to cause dispute but to share a neat breakthrough which sheds cultural light on these verses. Paul wasn't a 21st century scientist; when G-d didn't give direct revelation He saw things as other learned men of the day and Hippocrates was no dumby and his work was quite available in the day.

You wrote "If that's the best argument that some can come up with to disprove it [headcovering]..."
This is a colossal misunderstanding of the podcast/article and my reason for sharing. I like headcoverings. The scope of the podcast is in dealing with Paul's claiming it's a shame for a woman to have her head uncovered and to have short hair and a shame for a man to have long hair. Since we have Nazaarites who were extra holy and many think Yeshua had long hair, there's another reason. Take a breath, nobody is trying to take away headcoverings for ladies, Dr. Heiser included. not the point.

more on culture and context:
We have other verses that say it's' a shame for a man to cover his head, yet Western Judeo-Christian culture allows baseball hats, and Jews wear funny hats, what's up? He's writing to a culture where a man covering his head was part of cultic worship of a local deity. Understanding direct audience culture TOTALLY matters in many places in the bible for us to properly interpret what's going on. Otherwise scripture would contradict itself; and it doesn't. (you can't say someone can be more holy by being a Nazarite then say long hair on dudes is a shame..that's a contradiction if you divorce it from differing cultural contexts).


haha, yeah really amazing insights. I have to thank @FollowingHim for turning me onto this scholar over a year ago.
Truly wonderful find, this scholar I mean.
afterthought, I'm not saying women shouldn't cover their head...in Jewish culture a married woman does cover her head and I like it; it's just for different reasons than the Greeks did.
Click to expand...

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,NO! We have been over this before, I am not a "King James guy." I like the version but it's not my favorite.

And you will never ever get me to say that the Bible is based in any way on the perceptions of flawed men of the society around them. And you will never ever ever get me to have respect for someone who says scripture can be ignored because we know better now. Which is exactly what this guy is saying. Also, that Paul was completely okay with men exposing their genitals to God. What a crock.

The Jews and the gentiles were told it was shameful for women to pray and prophesy uncovered (and the men vice versa) for the same reason by the same God. It had nothing to do with culture or custom or anything other than God's Will.

I refuse to base my life on the the cultural observations and scientific understanding of some guy who may have been so deluded as to believe long hair worked as sperm pump to draw semen up into a woman's hollow body and that men produced semen in their brain and so had to have short hair (sperm pump) so the semen could flow down to their lower genitals.

Now seriously, would you base you life or stake your children's salvation on that lunacy?
 
ZecAustin said:
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,NO! We have been over this before, I am not a "King James guy." I like the version but it's not my favorite.

And you will never ever get me to say that the Bible is based in any way on the perceptions of flawed men of the society around them. And you will never ever ever get me to have respect for someone who says scripture can be ignored because we know better now. Which is exactly what this guy is saying. Also, that Paul was completely okay with men exposing their genitals to God. What a crock.

The Jews and the gentiles were told it was shameful for women to pray and prophesy uncovered (and the men vice versa) for the same reason by the same God. It had nothing to do with culture or custom or anything other than God's Will.

I refuse to base my life on the the cultural observations and scientific understanding of some guy who may have been so deluded as to believe long hair worked as sperm pump to draw semen up into a woman's hollow body and that men produced semen in their brain and so had to have short hair (sperm pump) so the semen could flow down to their lower genitals.

Now seriously, would you base you life or stake your children's salvation on that lunacy?
Click to expand...

SALVATION?? Really. I didn't get that.
 
Cap said:
@IshChayil, I for one enjoy the opportunity to explore thoughts that stretch the mind. I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that God said He would save me, and that I would assume means to include crazy talk. But, I like to consider things just to see what may reveal other things. Who knows, if they thought that way thousands of years ago, what are we thinking today that people a thousand years from now will think we were messed up.

The thing that interest me about this though, is what is the spiritual implications? There most be something connected to the spiritual world that was important enough for this be interpreted this way.
Click to expand...
spiritual implications are getting the commandments right. There's a dress code proposal from an Apostle so it's important to understand if it's a command or not. I'm coming at this from a "torah keeper" perspective though so others may not feel the same weight regarding this.

In another vein, spiritually it's important to be able to see that the text is not flawed or contradictory. I get asked questions quite frequently from atheists and agnostics and sometimes they have a pet "contradiction" in the text. Well if you have a religious text saying that guys with long hair are EXTRA-HOLY (i.e. Nazarite vows) then you got a place in the text saying guys with long hair are SHAMEFUL ... that needs to be exegeted.
As a student of Greek, I found the podcast both fascinating and revealing. It gives me a great answer how to reconcile these verses and it taps into the supernatural realm via the "look out not to tempt the angels" hint).
Hope this answers your question
 
IshChayil said:
spiritual implications are getting the commandments right.
Click to expand...

I don't know, this statement is sort of limiting to me. From what I understand we CAN'T get the commandments right, and that was the reason the Son of God came to save us. I agree trying to understand the commandments, the Word of God, is very important so that we can try and learn to understand the Mind of God so we can be like Him, but we will always fall short in our works to fulfill the Commandments, physically. Trying to understand the physical world spiritually is to me what 'spiritual implications' mean.
 
ZecAustin said:
I went big. We look to Paul for many of the explanations that underpin our faith. If he's that crazy, or even just making stuff up based on his own observations then we can't really be very sure all of the rest of it isn't made up.
Click to expand...

Is this sort of like, putting hedges around Laws? Extending the Sabbath Laws, not saying the Name of God, Catholics not wanting the layperson to read the Bible, things like that, just to be on the safe side?

I personally think there is a deeper spiritual meaning to all this hair/nonhair stuff.
 
I’m with Zec on this one. If The Scriptures are just a collection of “spiritual platitudes” “holy suggestions” then I’m out! I’m not going to follow a god who is incapable of speaking, who kinda sorta does things willy nilly. If G-d isn’t The all powerful one and His book is based on the misunderstandings of a few ancient men, then i have better things to do then follow Him.
 
Cap said:
I personally think there is a deeper spiritual meaning to all this hair/nonhair stuff
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I also agree with @ZecAustin that it has nothing to do with genitalia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top