• 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.

Under a father's covering until marriage?

I also want to see the scriptural basis for this word "covering". I suspect there is a lot to it but we need to be using a different and more biblically accurate term. Or at the very least we need to have a good definition for the term that actually conforms to scriptural standards.
 
Adam was created for fellowship with Yah.
Eve was created for Adam. Period.

While it is possible for us to find women in Scripture that were not under a male covering, show me any Scriptures that indicate that covering is not needed.
 
NickF said:
I also want to see the scriptural basis for this word "covering". I suspect there is a lot to it but we need to be using a different and more biblically accurate term. Or at the very least we need to have a good definition for the term that actually conforms to scriptural standards.
Click to expand...
A harsher word is authority or ownership. The concept is there.
I use the word covering as a less triggering word. 😉
 
steve said:
A harsher word is authority or ownership. The concept is there.
I use the word covering as a less triggering word. 😉
Click to expand...
You're a sweeter man than I. Ownership is the term I use. But everyone knows I'm a tad on the abrasive side of things.
 
theleastofthese said:
Ownership is a soft blow these days. Legally it holds no weight in our country.
Click to expand...
The big question would how do women approach it?
There is quite a difference between a verbal assent and a mental/heart assent.
 
If it's not a sin (and this isn't), you're really dealing with 'good, better, best' in my opinion. The best scenario is that you would have a wise and loving father or husband (patriarch) who can step in and call that guy some salty expletives haha. It sounds like you hit his snowflake button and he's meeeeeeeeeeelting.

There isn't an explicit command saying that a women is "under her father's authority until marriage" (that I'm aware of); however, the patriarchal structure, arrangement of marriages from father to husband (ex: Gen. 24 & 29), father's blessing (ex: Gen. 28), vows and oaths (Num. 30), and protection/provision laws (such as in Ex. 22) and others paint a picture where the father had significant authority until marriage. Then the husband had that authority. Traditions like veiling and seclusion, or gender segregation in community aspects (social media included I think haha) are just that - traditions. Hope that's helpful.
 
Joshua said:
or if God purposefully bestowed the Hebrew culture with fatherly rights over daughter til any marriage
Click to expand...
Numbers 30:3-5 (DBY) 3 If a woman also vow a vow to Jehovah, and bind herself by a bond, in her father's house in her youth, 4 and her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall be silent at her, then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5 But if her father prohibited her in the day that he heard, none of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand; and Jehovah shall pardon her, because her father prohibited her.

Is that purposeful enough for you?
I don’t believe that “in her youth” would limit his authority to her first menses as long as she is still in her father’s house.
 
Last edited:
steve said:
A harsher word is authority or ownership. The concept is there.
I use the word covering as a less triggering word. 😉
Click to expand...

Therein lies the difficulty.
Life is triggering to use the same modern verbiage. There are no guarantees that anyone gets out alive much less unoffended.

I get why women might get bent out of shape that there was a point at which woman were seen as property. Doesn't sound flattering. Duh.
By the same token, in the current year, they frequently believe that the world would be better without men entirely and that we are entirely superfluous to requirement...even though we quite literally built the comfortable high tech world that allows them to complain on the internet about how useless we are.

Consider me more fond of the idea of complementary pairing than viewing thing through either of those two extreme lenses. We need each other...full stop.

Thinking on it, especially if all of us tinfoil had crew are not actually crazy...personally, I at least have a depressingly accurate record so far and don't think it is a flex to say it. I would rather be wrong...then we are going to need each other far more than ever as the world is going to hell on a bally bullet train.
 
theleastofthese said:
I recently had a little disagreement with someone on social media (imagine that). He proceeded to tell me that, as a woman, I couldn't "question" him. He stated that if I'm married, my husband must do so, and if I'm not, then my father should be the one speaking to him, not me.

I didn't realize that a man and woman couldn't have a simple conversation or disagreement on a public platform without a father or husband's headship. I was under the impression that a father's covering applied to women in their youth and women living in their father's household. I'm far removed from both.

Can anyone offer some insight into what a covering for unmarried women would consist of? Now I'm curious if I've been misunderstanding all along.
Click to expand...
The guy is full of shit. While it is true that husbands, and to a lesser extent fathers, have a unique role of authority in a woman’s life, that role is unique and no other man has any claim on her respect or deference of any kind.

There are certain restrictions places by Paul on a woman’s behavior in the assembly. There is a prohibition on teaching men that could be improperly applied to this situation but my understanding is that only applies to formal teaching in a group setting. She can argue with randos all she wants.
 
theleastofthese said:
Can anyone point me to passages stating that a woman is under her father's covering if she is no longer in his household or in her youth? I'm not arguing the case, I'd like to study it.
Click to expand...
The whole concept of “covering” is a little nebulous. It’s a real thing but as far as I can tell only applies to husbands. Fathers don’t appear to be included.

Some me claim that women must always be covered by a man but I can’t find any scriptural basis for that.
 
paterfamilias said:
Consider me more fond of the idea of complementary pairing than viewing thing through either of those two extreme lenses. We need each other...full stop.
Click to expand...
We definitely need each other, but there is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

While His ways can be extreme, taking His ways to the extreme is just as dangerous as modifying them to lighten them up.
 
The Revolting Man said:
The guy is full of shit. While it is true that husbands, and to a lesser extent fathers, have a unique role of authority in a woman’s life, that role is unique and no other man has any claim on her respect or deference of any kind.

There are certain restrictions places by Paul on a woman’s behavior in the assembly. There is a prohibition on teaching men that could be improperly applied to this situation but my understanding is that only applies to formal teaching in a group setting. She can argue with randos all she wants.
Click to expand...
The Revolting Man said:
The whole concept of “covering” is a little nebulous. It’s a real thing but as far as I can tell only applies to husbands. Fathers don’t appear to be included.

Some me claim that women must always be covered by a man but I can’t find any scriptural basis for that.
Click to expand...
This is the clarification I was looking for; thank you for that. I think he combined two passages he misunderstood and used them incorrectly.
 
steve said:
Numbers 30:3-5 (DBY) 3 If a woman also vow a vow to Jehovah, and bind herself by a bond, in her father's house in her youth, 4 and her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall be silent at her, then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5 But if her father prohibited her in the day that he heard, none of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand; and Jehovah shall pardon her, because her father prohibited her.

Is that purposeful enough for you?
I don’t believe that “in her youth” would limit his authority to her first menses as long as she is still in her father’s house.
Click to expand...
Yeah cause the culture shouldn’t allow them to just move out and go somewhere on a whim without the father. This is the absolute ideal, and people asking “but what about evil fathers” need to ask what about rape? Bad things happen and that doesn’t make God bad
 
NickF said:
You're a sweeter man than I. Ownership is the term I use. But everyone knows I'm a tad on the abrasive side of things.
Click to expand...
And if we substitute "ownership" for covering then we get a simple answer to the question.

If a woman's father has "disowned" her - if he does not consider himself to be her owner, and considers her to be free to make her own decisions in life - then she has no owner. And that is the case for almost all single women. So they are free.
 
FollowingHim said:
And if we substitute "ownership" for covering then we get a simple answer to the question.

If a woman's father has "disowned" her - if he does not consider himself to be her owner, and considers her to be free to make her own decisions in life - then she has no owner. And that is the case for almost all single women. So they are free.
Click to expand...
Good point, I didn't even think of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top