Head Coverings Predated Christianity

[donfriesen1]

Part 2/2

Originally Posted by votivesoul

.

Later still, in Isaiah 47:1-3, as a judgment against the virgin daughter, i.e. the people, of Babylon, a symbolic description is given of the specifics of how badly God is going to bring destruction upon them. One aspect of the description is given thusly:

"...put off your veil..."

But note the fuller context of the judgment:

Quote:
2 ...put off your veil,
strip off your robe, uncover your legs,
pass through the rivers.
3 Your nakedness shall be uncovered,
and your disgrace shall be seen.

Removing the veil was part and parcel of stripping oneself in public, i.e. the shame and disgrace of being naked before others. Note specifically, the word for disgrace, in Hebrew is חֶרְפָּתֵ֑ךְ (ḥerpāṯêḵ), which often refers to the pudenda, or external genitalia of a woman.

See: https://biblehub.com/hebrew/2781.htm

So, what do we have going here with all of this data?

We have a living example from the time of the Patriarchs of at least one woman veiling herself as part of her marriage ceremony. Saying this about Patriarchs would not deny that which was similarly practiced in others, in pagan religions. As such it was culture, not command. Why do you wish to be seen asking culture to bolster your religious viewss. Use the Word/commands - not culture. But when the Word doesn't give what you want it to say, then I understand why you would want to use anything else you can find. We have a law in the Torah about married women being forcibly Oh, Yes! Using a word like forcibly will be really convincing as proof that somewhere there was a command of God that required the veil and the forcible removal. It would also show a priest as pre-judging her as guilty by rough treatment. Were priests not to judge fairly? Was this process not to be done to reveal her guilt or innocence? Yes.The priest would not pre-judge her but give her a fair trial, treating her fairly before she was found guilty - not roughly as if she was already guilty. And also, there is the lack of universal agreement whether 'parah' always refers to de-veiling or instead, the unbinding of the hair. Let us know when you find this invisible, non-existent command. unveiled in the Sotah Ritual, which specifically deals with sexual sin and indiscretion, which was punishable by death (Leviticus 20:10), and we have a prophet telling us in poetic language that the unveiling of a woman's hair is tantamount to her being stripped bare and forced to go out publicly naked, forced, as it were, to have to show the world her pudenda or external genitalia, i.e. her vulva. You reference with words a prophet, but do not reveal source or identity so we can confirm for ourselves.Isa47 is written about ungodly idolatrous Jews who were to be punished for their backsliding ways, by capturers who would humiliate them. It had nothing to do with faithful Jews who religiously veiled in obedience to a command which did not exist. Similar things were done by all nations in those who had been captured. Referring to pagan war practices does not 'a command of God make'. Why such shallow searching for evidence when the Word of God, the OT, should abound with commands as something so important as God's Order of Authority and the symbol-kept showing compliance. Instead, scooping from pagan swamps. That it is necessary to go into the swamps for proof should have convinced you long ago that the proofs don't exist. What you say was required by God, wasn't. This is just grasping for straws, hoping for a limb to keep from the sinking you'll do unless you come up with something better. I won't wish you luck, because that would provide false hope for a hopeless cause.

This is the understanding Paul had transmitted to him. A near contemporary of Paul, a Jewish Rabbi named Rav Sheshet, is quoted in the Talmud (Berakhot 24a) as saying:

Quote:
Rav Sheshet stated: Even a woman’s hair is considered nakedness, for it too is praised, as it is written: “Your hair is like a flock of goats, trailing down from Mount Gilead” (Song of Songs 4:1).

See: https://www.sefaria.org/Berakhot.24a...h=all&lang2=en

What then is the conclusion?

In 1 Corinthians 11:15, we read this:

Quote:
15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. (ESV)

Large portion deleted. see post 18 for what.

These things all being the case, what is Paul conveying to the Corinthian Church, and by extension, to the Christian world at large, all the way up to today? And here I thought that you would say that a woman's hair is given to her for a covering. Those who believe the vv (veil view) are good at ignoring this. And those who believe the ulv (uncut long view) are good at ignoring every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. Paul wrote both sentences and both should be incorporated into our head-covering view. No verses should be ignored...but some do so. If only there was a view which could explain they were both right. Wait! There is! It's the iv (instincts view) which has been shared in AFF on a thread here: https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...ad.php?t=55053 Effectively, a (married) woman's hair is understood to be regarded as part of her external genitalia and being able to see it unveiled constitutes something akin to being guilty of adultery, in the sense that a man and a woman become one flesh in marriage, and so, her hair, as understood to be a part of her external genitalia, becomes her husband's external genitalia, and the Torah forbids the uncovering or either's nakedness as a sin (See Leviticus 18). And? Is there an 'and' coming? Like in the creation of Eve, who was made without any veil. I'd expect that the writer would follow with a story-line beginning with "And because Eve in the Garden wasn't commanded or provided a cover so she could be seen showing due regard (according to God's Order of Authority guides), that she doesn't is explained by...."

Even after having a cover provided for her sinful nakedness, she is not seen with God providing her a veil at this same time. God does not provide her means to do something important, to show due regard to God and her man. He provides the greater cover but not the lesser. Tut tut, Lord. Are you new at your role as God, in this God-game and did you forget something, like the veil for Eve? Something important is missing!

God forgets for 4050 years. Paul is the first ever to command a veil, if he indeed is commanding a veil (he's not commanding anything). (If an explanation is ever given by another for Eve's lack in the Garden, then those with authority in AFF will pick up stones for the one presenting views which contradict theirs. But when all they have are stones, then what else can they do? They don't have the logical arguments which can convincingly show the iv wrong. You can't let an answer stay standing which reveals inconsistencies you can't cover for. You stone the one instead, taking all necessary efforts to discredit those who have no credit. This has actually happened.)

God left Eve butt-naked in the Garden, if we follow votivesoul along the path he lays. I'd rather have a path which from the git-go shows her covered. Check out the iv, whose author claims he leaves no verse ignored, no discrepancy without explanation. But then, lots of people have made similar claims. Talk is cheap, as we see in AFF often. Very, very cheap. Stones and words are very cheap.

This is the tradition the Corinthians had passed to them by Paul, that he himself inherited, which we now today, have codified to us in the 11th chapter of his epistle to them. Obviously, votivesoul, you've done vast amounts of research on the topic. Doing so gives you many facts which can be applied as evidence for what you contend for - your veil view (vv) which you say is Paul's. But you know full well that another researcher will come up with facts to be applied to another view, also seemingly logical in the context of their presentation. Oftentimes then, the better the presenter/researcher, the more convincing their view.

All your evidence-presenting jumps over/ignores the fact that - the OT shows no veiling command for a starting point. (It also shows no command for uncut hair.) Why do your arguments start in the middle of the story and not at the beginning? Why is there no Beginning or OT starting-point command in that which you say Paul now commands for the NT? You do say Paul commands the veil for the Church, don't you?

Better to say this: Paul loves the Word, the OT, the only Word in his possession. He would draw any NT commands from the Book he loves. Because he has not seen veiling as a command in the Book he worships, he would not command the Church to do that which he has not seen there. He would command, if he indeed commands, that which is actually seen. A view which better fits the facts needs to be embraced; and the vv let go of. Don't scholars usually say 'read the whole Book' and 'use the whole Book to make doctrine'. The vv and the ulv ignore this principle/guideline to formulate doctrine from mostly one chapter. They have to, because the whole doesn't show support for their views.

A (married) woman who prays or prophesies in church during public worship, but whose hair isn't veiled is doing so as if both she and her husband were naked. If true or not, wouldn't this be true whether for either a societal norm or for a religious tradition based on the Word? Of course. It fits both ways regardless of which head-covering view you hold.

So, for her to be veiled in every instance except in her home during private life is the cultural expectation of the Kingdom of God. It goes far beyond the Greco-Roman milieu of the 1st century. It harkens all the way back to the Patriarchs, is upheld through the Torah into the Prophets all the way to the time of Christ and the New Covenant Church, even being recognized by other Jewish rabbis near the same time, forward to 2026 and beyond. I hope you have the integrity to agree that the facts presented are mighty slim as convincing evidence. Your facts are true but slim for supporting evidence. A doctrine of such broad encompassing application, "touched" every day in a woman's life, needs better foundations than that just presented by votivesoul.

1 Corinthians 11:16 (ESV)

Quote:
16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Now, plz votivesoul and Reader, plz slow down enough to re-read and contemplate the logic and scriptural thoughts presented by donfriesen1. Weigh them for wrong interpretation and false logic. If kosher, accept them. Reject that which is illogical or unscriptural by bad interpretation. Walk in truth as Apostolics should. Leave behind preconceived thoughts which have discrepancies or gaps, such as those shown in the vv and the ulv.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

No OT command for head-covering is found which would have developed into a religious tradition. Can this statement be disproved?

Yes, Esaias, Votivesoul, and myself gave valid arguments. You haven't posted any scriptural or historical refutation. You are just doing the above, which is pontificating and posing more questions.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

If it was a tradition (tradition and custom have such great similarities in their definitions that they often are used inter-changeably.

Not where theology is concerned, we have the Apostle Paul telling his readers that they should follow him as he follows Christ. Paul's calling highlights the fact his authority and lifestyle are solely based on Jesus' authority. Therefore he makes this statement to preface what he will talk about in the chapter. Everything from nuts to bolts will be discussed as it comes from the leader, which Paul tells his readers, is Christ. They are to follow what he is about to lay out for them. Paul begins with this commending the saints and acknowledging their efforts to follow his teachings before addressing specific, serious problems in the following verses such as disorderly conduct, improper attire, and misuse of the Lord's Supper. We also should keep in mind that the Apostle Peter called Paul's writings of the exact same level and holy honor as the Old Testament. If Paul said it, then you can guarantee it was as good as it was inked down in the Old Testament, 2 Peter 3:15-16. Paul uses the word παράδοσις which is translated into the the King James English word ordinances. In Galatians 1:14 it is translated as the "tradition of the Elders." The traditions which the Apostle Paul will be dealing with in 1 Corinthians 11 will be those traditions of the Elders, which in his case are the Apostles.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Does Paul, in 1Co11? NO.) then it was of human origin, not religious.

I know you've been beating the snot out of this tin drum. But, buddy boy, you haven't touch top side or bottom of any real solid proof. All you are posting is a bunch of rhetoric, and may bees. The Apostle Paul commended the Corinthians of their obeying all that he taught them. Which was the tradition of the Elders. Also, if we follow your premise, is everything else he teaches in 1 Corinthians 11 also of human origin? The Lord Supper? How one is to conduct themselves in dealing with that supper? Paul wasn't making suggestion, wasn't teaching Hellenized Judean diaspora and Roman Gentiles to be good citizens. If he was he totally blew it when it came to the subject of males in veils.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Paul usually bases his ideas on the OT, the only Word of God he has.

Only the the Old Testament? Paul specifically points out to his Corinthian audience that he was proud of them because they obey all the traditions, ordinances and teachings/παράδοσις he handed down to them. You know, the "παράδοσις" which was from JESUS! Also the 12 APOSTLES! Old Testament only? Should we start calling you Yeshiva Don?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

He would not teach for NT doctrine things not having their origins in the only Word he loves.

Don, come on, how old are you?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Therefore, his opening comments in 1Co11 can not be referring to a religious tradition of veiling.

Don, the Apostle Paul isn't just talking about head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. Read the chapter.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Can this be proved wrong?

Ah..yeah. From Esaias, Amanah, Votivesoul, myself. I don't know if anyone else tooK a swing at you. But we all pretty much put this puppy to bed. Remember you kicked this dead horse so bad that the admin closed the thread? But, hey, you love getting dragged around by your hair and so we are still talking about your candy stick the "IV"

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Showing the origin of a tradition by way of command would show this thought wrong.

Don, do you know how we study Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, any ancient religious language? We try to find how they used it in everyday life during ancient times. We see how Paul's contemporaries used the word. Therefore we just don't use the word's dictionary meaning, but how the word is used in the context of the sentence, the paragraph, and how others used it in that time.
Also how the word was used in other areas in religious texts of that time. So, what we have is Paul teaching these Greek Judeans, and Roman Greeks the HANDED DOWN teachings of the Elders who would be the APOSTLES!

[Evang.Benincasa]

https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/m...05_bYwA4My.pdf

Maybe I can try to add some information on the Bronze Age usage of head coverings, to recover the topic of the thread. The above is a PDF which covers just a small portion of the topic.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You are just doing the above, which is pontificating and posing more questions. Errr... Dom, I was just putting forward valid points about what traditions are and aren't. Below, is a pic of someone posing and pontificating.



Because you've also asked questions as well, I'll repeat back to ya what you said "You are just doing the above, which is pontificating and posing more questions. "

Now, do something unique and explain why Paul was speaking about traditions, doing so by refuting the reasons stated earlier, in post 20,21.

Reader, if Dom wanted to, he would have already done so. He has vast reservoirs of knowledge I could only hope to attain in heaven, but he will not now answer the question directly. The reason being: the points put forward are irrefutable and Dom must know this.

.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Errr... Dom, I was just putting forward valid points about what traditions are and aren't. Below, is a pic of someone posing and pontificating.

Don, none of your points are valid. The only valid point you have is right on top of your head. The picture is of Augustus, as Pontiff Maximus, wearing a head covering. Like all good Romans would of worn in the first century A.D.. Yet, Paul teaches against men wearing the fold of the capite velato. Therefore your whole argument that Paul is allowing "tradition" of Hellenized Romans, is illogical and false. No word serving position for you.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Because you've also asked questions as well, I'll repeat back to ya what you said "You are just doing the above, which is pontificating and posing more questions. "

Now, do something unique and explain why Paul was speaking about traditions, doing so by refuting the reasons stated earlier, in post 20,21.

I already explained what Paul means by his use of the Greek παράδοσις. It's precepts passed from one generation or person to another, either orally or in writing. It is used to describe the Apostolic teachings, or the teachings of the elders, and rabbis. Didn't you read my last post? Post 22? Are you serious! Go and show where I'm wrong! You are real silly man.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Reader, if Dom wanted to, he would have already done so. He has vast reservoirs of knowledge I could only hope to attain in heaven, but he will not now answer the question directly. The reason being: the points put forward are irrefutable and Dom must know this.

Reader? Who are you talking to? Where is this "reader?" Don, do you have any friends? Anyone who would care to team up with you and sign on to backup your Ecclesiastical nonsense? Also, Don, do you do drugs? Or do you knock down a case of Molson before you post to me? How about prescription drugs? Maybe you chug some Moosehead with your scripts? Then you post the above inebriated foolishness. Don, did you read post 22? Did you read post 14? You got the picture of Augustus from post 14, and post 22. If you did you would've seen my rebuttal. But, you are a Joker, certifiable Ecclesiastical Joker.

[Amanah]

To interpret 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 accurately, we must look past the Greek text to the Hebrew concepts of creation and honor that Paul, a trained Rabbi, was utilizing.

1. Head (Greek: Kephale / Hebrew: Rosh
In verse 3, Paul establishes a hierarchy of "headship." In Hebrew thought, the "Rosh" is not merely a "boss" but the "source" or "beginning." Paul’s logic is rooted in the order of creation: just as God is the source of Christ’s incarnate mission, and Adam was the source of Eve’s physical being, the "head" represents a relational origin that demands respect for the order God established.

2. Image and Glory (Greek: Eikon & Doxa / Hebrew: Tselem & Kavod)
In verse 7, Paul discusses "image" and "glory." The Hebrew "Tselem" (Image) refers to a representative likeness, while "Kavod" (Glory) literally means "weight" or "significance." Paul argues that man manifests God’s glory directly, while woman is the "Kavod" of man—meaning she is the "crown" or "excellence" of the human race. In a worship setting, Paul’s Hebraic view is that human "glory" (the head/hair) should be veiled so that only God’s "Kavod" is the focus of the assembly.

3. Authority (Greek: Exousia / Hebrew: Mimshal)
In verse 10, the "symbol of authority" on a woman's head relates to the Hebrew concept of "Mimshal" (rule or domain). Within the context of "because of the angels," Paul is drawing on Second Temple Jewish tradition which taught that angels were present during prayer to ensure divine order. A head covering served as a visual "Exousia," signaling to the spiritual realm that the woman was operating within the protected boundaries of God’s created order.

Summary of Interpretation
For Paul, this passage isn't about social inferiority, but about the "proper placement" of glory. By understanding these Hebrew roots, we see that the physical act of covering or uncovering the head was a way of honoring one's "Source" (Rosh) and ensuring that in the presence of the Holy, all human "weight" (Kavod) is surrendered to God.

Here is a glossary of the key Hebrew terms used to understand 1 Corinthians 11:3–10 through a Hebraic lens

1. Rosh (רֹאשׁ) H7218
Translation: Head, Chief, or Beginning.
Hebraic Concept: Beyond just a physical head or a "boss," Rosh signifies source, origin, or primality. In the context of 1 Corinthians 11:3, it refers to a relational beginning—such as Adam being the "source" of Eve—emphasizing respect for the established order of creation rather than social status.

2. Tselem (צֶלֶם) H6754
Translation: Image or Shadow.
Hebraic Concept: Derived from tzel (shadow), Tselem refers to a representative likeness or a "shadow-outline" of an original figure. In verse 7, it defines man as a visible reflection of God's character and form on Earth.

3. Kavod (כָּבוֹד) H3519
Translation: Glory, Honor, or Weight.
Hebraic Concept: Kavod literally means "weightiness" or "significance". It describes the visible manifestation of importance or divine presence. In this passage, woman is described as the Kavod (excellence or crown) of man, and Paul argues that during worship, human "glory" should be veiled to prioritize God's supreme significance.

4. Mimshal (מִמְשָׁל) H4475
Translation: Rule, Dominion, or Domain.
Hebraic Concept: Related to the verb mashal (to rule or have authority), Mimshal refers to a domain of authority or a designated sphere of influence. In verse 10, the "symbol of authority" (Greek exousia) acts as a visual sign that a woman is operating within her God-ordained domain, a concept particularly significant in the presence of angels who observe divine order.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

Don, none of your points are valid. The only valid point you have is right on top of your head.

Okaaay....then. That's a rather pointed comment, don't you think, reader? Someone does not want to have meaningful Bible discussion today, wanting to sling mud instead.

One point I made - that there are no OT commands for head covering doctrine - cannot be denied. No one ever quotes a reference to any such OT verse, because they can't. Thus it is a valid point.

Why this is significant: Paul indicates the base for his God's Order of Authority doctrine is found in the Beginning. 1Co11.7-10. If the base is there, then the symbol should be too, when it is realized that all humans of all time (incl A&E) would need to show regard to God's Order of Authority - using a symbol. If the base is in the Beginning, Ge2, then it would be expected that the symbol would also be indicated. But God has not OT indicated by command either His Order of Authority or the symbol. As shown in my 1Co11 commentary, there is a reason for this.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

Some then would even deny the reality of valid Biblical points, especially when this reality contradicts their head-covering views!

Dom should try making up a Bible verse and pass it off for a real one. This would be similar to denying Biblical reality. Who would want someone who denies Bible reality teaching them doctrine?

There are times when someone will want someone else to disappear from off the face of the earth. They will use extreme measures, like denying reality, to indicate this. But why? It is so easy to accept truth.

[Amanah]

Baptism and communion were not commanded by Moses and yet here we are.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Baptism and communion were not commanded by Moses and yet here we are.

Amen, therefore we have the apostle's direction found in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by "word," or our "epistle." The Apostle Paul admonishes the church in Thessaloniki to adhere to the paradosis "παράδοσις" of the elders, which would of been Jesus Christ, and the founding apostles. He would've NEVER considered teaching the commandments of "men." Since the Apostle Paul knew full well the words of Christ found in Mark 7:8-9.

"For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

The Apostle Peter associated the epistles of the Apostle Paul with Holy scripture, 2 Peter 3:15–16. This shows that the Apostles brought forth issues which were a mystery in the Old Testament to become plain to the converts to Christianity. Yet, the Judaizers, as well as the Antinomians tried to ignore this New Testament fact, bringing destruction upon themselves, and anyone who would be lead away by their teachings.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Amen, therefore we have the apostle's direction found in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by "word," or our "epistle." The Apostle Paul admonishes the church in Thessaloniki to adhere to the paradosis "παράδοσις" of the elders, which would of been Jesus Christ, and the founding apostles. He would've NEVER considered teaching the commandments of "men." Since the Apostle Paul knew full well the words of Christ found in Mark 7:8-9.

"For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition."

The Apostle Peter associated the epistles of the Apostle Paul with Holy scripture, 2 Peter 3:15–16. This shows that the Apostles brought forth issues which were a mystery in the Old Testament to become plain to the converts to Christianity. Yet, the Judaizers, as well as the Antinomians tried to ignore this New Testament fact, bringing destruction upon themselves, and anyone who would be lead away by their teachings.

Yes, therefore we see Jesus Messiah manifesting the fulfillment of the law, saying "thus you have heard it said, but I say unto you ....." bringing further revelation.