Is a woman required to cover her head today?

[quietthinker]

I must admit seeing someone naked unexpectedly is a bit rattling ....but, Its not such a big deal when it's all part of a days activity.

 

[Lambano]

Well there ya go Lambano. Perhaps that's how that culture (muslim) sees it?

I think you may be right. Damn, I hate it when that happens.

 

[Jay Ross]

I must admit seeing someone naked unexpectedly is a bit rattling ....but, Its not such a big deal when it's all part of a days activity.

I suppose that you ask the large mirror on the wall in your room when you look into it, "Who is the most dashing of men that you can see?"

 

[quietthinker]

I suppose that you ask the large mirror on the wall in your room when you look into it, "Who is the most dashing of men that you can see?"

Awwww, nothing too dashing about a 73 yr old.....or is it my eyesight?

 

[Jay Ross]

Awwww, nothing too dashing about a 73 yr old.....or is it my eyesight?

So, you are still a pup then?

 

[Lambano]

 

[Lambano]

 

[David Lamb]

It is scripture.

Where in Scripture are we told that the phrase "because of the angels" means "because of the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6?"

 

[Bombastic]

'Sons of God' is also a reference to believers. Could we say that those of faith mentioned in Hebrews 11 would be deemed Sons of God?
Conversely, could we also posit that 'sons of men' is reference to the unbelieving？

Yes, also a reference to believers, later believers. Both Genesis and Job are at least intended to be ancient, and the biblical term is defined by its immediate surrounding context. And also... .
For example, in the case of Job, how many of "ye" believers have stood before the L-rd in His heavenly court? Now, to mention, I am a trinitarian; what I am suggesting is to also understand how "us" was or is understood in Genesis 1:26 in historical context.
At the very least Satan is described in the book of Job as having access to the throne of G-d. And he, among the "sons of G-d," is described in the heavenly realm, the place where G-d resides.
If both the historical and surrounding context are emphasized, which best defines "sons of G-d"?

 

[Bombastic]

Where in Scripture are we told that the phrase "because of the angels" means "because of the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6?"

"Angelic," if I may suggest, is a translation that seemingly has become more popular as the language into which the ancient text is translated has either become more popular or easier to understand and, unfortunately, to support NT theology.
For example, some believe "us" in Genesis 1:26 is the trinity, and that's okay.
But that interpretation doesn't in any way attempt to recognize how "us" was understood historically. And if I might add, most conservative interpreters frown upon eisegesis yet are quick to apply Christology liberally to ancient or all contexts. Genesis contextually occurs in the beginning, and to me, really, the only other book biblically to draw from is Job, which at least by context predates most of Genesis.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

If angels aren't "supernatural, beings" then what are? Paul was talking about spiritual authority/power i.e. a spiritual "head covering," and why it was necessary, especially for women, because of the angels and what they had previously done to earthly women.

"For this cause ought the woman to have power [spiritual authority] on her head [--->] because of the angels." (verse 10)

Sorry but this is incorrect.

A woman must have a spiritual authority over her. For a married woman this is her husband, for an unmarried young girl, this is her father.

But this chapter is specifically dealing with head coverings in worship. A married woman in teh congregation should have a physical head covering on her head to show her submission to her husband.

 

[doctrox]

But this chapter is specifically dealing with head coverings in worship.

Some thoughts:

1) v. 2 - "...remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances..."

2) v. 3 - "But I would have you know..." Paul goes on to detail what a "head" is, specifically, a spiritual head:

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

A spiritually "uncovered" woman is as shameful as a woman who has no hair (a woman's long hair is her glory, v. 15).

3) v. 8-9 - "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." So there's your spiritual alignment: God -> Jesus -> man -> woman -- not for the purpose of dominance, but protection.

...and finally, a summation of the spiritual rationale for a spiritual head covering...

4) v. 10 - "For this cause ought the woman to have power [spiritual authority] on her head because of the angels." Also note, the word her is italicized, added for clarity. Read the verse again, but with "her" omitted. So it's not about gender per se or clothing; it's about the necessity of having "power" i.e. spiritual authority - because of the angels. Otherwise, you would believe that a mere physical covering has "power"/spiritual authority.

...head coverings in worship. A married woman in teh congregation should have a physical head covering...

5) This is not about the physical:
v. 16 - "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

Many folks prefer to run to A.I. or commentaries; they do not discern because they are not reading the passage in its totality, in context. It's similar to all the divisive pap that surrounds the water baptism debate - pontificating on the physical while ignoring the spiritual.

Where in Scripture are we told that the phrase "because of the angels" means "because of the sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6?"

The phrase "sons of God" (bene ha elohim) is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to refer exclusively to angelic beings.

It was a commonly accepted belief, early in biblical history and evidenced in the historical literature, that a repeat of the Genesis chapter 6 episode, where fallen angels mated with earthly women, was not only possible but probable. IOW, these rebellious and malevolent angels remain highly desirous of earthly women. And that is why it's still vital to this day that our womenfolk remain "under cover."

I've heard countless ppl who have tried to spiritualize, exegete, the phrase "because of the angels." They remain flummoxed by it.

 

[quietthinker]

If both the historical and surrounding context are emphasized, which best defines "sons of G-d"?

Both are defined as Sons of God. As implied earlier, I think angels are asexual and that the reference in Genesis that is translated as angels copulating with women is joining the dots poorly.

The further implication is that there are half human half demonic beings on the planet. This is to be considered in the context of the Gospel. In my view it doesn't stack up.

 

[Bombastic]

Both are defined as Sons of God. As implied earlier, I think angels are asexual and that the reference in Genesis that is translated as angels copulating with women is joining the dots poorly.

The further implication is that there are half human half demonic beings on the planet. This is to be considered in the context of the Gospel. In my view it doesn't stack up.

I don't know anything about that. I don't want to recommend the Book of Enoch as extra-biblical reading. More is said there than in Scripture about "angelic" origins, hierarchies, and specific roles much more extensively than in the canonical Bible.
I will say, if considering extra-biblical works, take, for example, story time by a pastor that often shares something sentimental or relevant before leading into his sermon or passages. I find a lot of Jewish literature meaningful; often myths, legends, etc., are ancient and can sometimes convey a meaningful point from the historical context with respect to the audience.
Like those writings, I do not consider the Book of Enoch inspired writings. That's why I consider them extra-biblical. And because I do not want to recommend extra-biblical writing and any recommendation being potentially misinterpreted as authoritative, I'd rather say, "I don't know." But if we are going to entertain speculation, there are other extra-biblical sources of Jewish speculation.

 

[doctrox]

I think angels are asexual and that the reference in Genesis that is translated as angels copulating with women is joining the dots poorly.

... a fair statement, but without scriptural support. Angels are not "asexual." And God never said that angels cannot procreate; he said that obedient angels do not procreate, do not marry. Both 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6-7 reference angels who abandoned their proper domain, which connects directly to Genesis 6. God never said angels were categorically incapable of reproduction/sex.

The further implication is that there are half human half demonic beings on the planet.

Rather, half human half animal? For certain, though, we are told that when Jesus returns, the times will be just as they were in the time of the flood... (e.g. "There were giants in the earth in those days" (Gen. 6:4); "But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (Mat. 24:37)).

I don't want to recommend the Book of Enoch as extra-biblical reading. More is said there than in Scripture about "angelic" origins, hierarchies, and specific roles

True. If only folks would first become personally intimate with their own Holy Bible, only then maybe consider other historical sources.

 

[Grailhunter]

It was a commonly accepted belief, early in biblical history and evidenced in the historical literature, that a repeat of the Genesis chapter 6 episode, where fallen angels mated with earthly women, was not only possible but probable. IOW, these rebellious and malevolent angels remain highly desirous of earthly women. And that is why it's still vital to this day that our womenfolk remain "under cover."

I know the general and common beliefs regarding this story but a lot of them are loose imaginative speculation.
The neat thing about the sons of God story is that you can let your imagination run wild.
This story raises a host of questions?
They are not called Angels. How about aliens?
No disapproval by God noted in the scriptures.
Most people think that Angels do not have peckers. Was this a special breed? Why would God give them peckers unless he intended for them to use them?
These sons of God married these women. Marriage implies more than casual sex, it implies relationships. Did they stick around and raise their children?
What did their offspring do to be known as mighty men of renown, which is a positive statement?
It appears that the giants were there before these couplings.
What connection do these giants have to the story?
No storyline for the giants. Where they a problem? Were they dangerous?
Could these mighty men of renown be giant killers?
Could this be the reason the sons of God married these women, to raise giant killers?
Could they be in the ancient bloodline to Young David who killed a giant?
Nowhere in the scriptures is the flood associated with this event. Particularly since God did not condemn these marriages.
There were giants before and after the flood, did they survive the flood?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Some thoughts:

1) v. 2 - "...remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances..."

2) v. 3 - "But I would have you know..." Paul goes on to detail what a "head" is, specifically, a spiritual head:

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

A spiritually "uncovered" woman is as shameful as a woman who has no hair (a woman's long hair is her glory, v. 15).

3) v. 8-9 - "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." So there's your spiritual alignment: God -> Jesus -> man -> woman -- not for the purpose of dominance, but protection.

...and finally, a summation of the spiritual rationale for a spiritual head covering...

4) v. 10 - "For this cause ought the woman to have power [spiritual authority] on her head because of the angels." Also note, the word her is italicized, added for clarity. Read the verse again, but with "her" omitted. So it's not about gender per se or clothing; it's about the necessity of having "power" i.e. spiritual authority - because of the angels. Otherwise, you would believe that a mere physical covering has "power"/spiritual authority.


5) This is not about the physical:
v. 16 - "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

Many folks prefer to run to A.I. or commentaries; they do not discern because they are not reading the passage in its totality, in context. It's similar to all the divisive pap that surrounds the water baptism debate - pontificating on the physical while ignoring the spiritual.


The phrase "sons of God" (bene ha elohim) is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to refer exclusively to angelic beings.

It was a commonly accepted belief, early in biblical history and evidenced in the historical literature, that a repeat of the Genesis chapter 6 episode, where fallen angels mated with earthly women, was not only possible but probable. IOW, these rebellious and malevolent angels remain highly desirous of earthly women. And that is why it's still vital to this day that our womenfolk remain "under cover."

I've heard countless ppl who have tried to spiritualize, exegete, the phrase "because of the angels." They remain flummoxed by it.

HIstory and common practice prove your hypothesis wrong. Also in this samne passage Paul uses the word cover to mean a physical head covering. The Word is akatakalyptos and means without a covering or veil. All married women went to worship with some type of physical covering on their heads. Even younger women wore coverings to show their submission to their fathers.

It cannot be just hair, for if it was, then all men must worship being bald! The married woman has a "a spiritual covering" (her husband).

Also the angels in Genesis 6 did have sex with human women. Their is no other legitimate way to properly exegete the passage. That is why the results of those unions produced those mighty men and men of renown. Most likely all ancinet religions that had the gods and demigods were based on a corruption of the account of Genesis 6.

 

[doctrox]

It cannot be just hair, for if it was, then all men must worship being bald! The married woman has a "a spiritual covering" (her husband).

It's NOT "just for hair" - that's the point. The entire passage ends in the spiritual, as it was intended - not in the physical.

All married women went to worship with some type of physical covering on their heads.

Whether "married women went to worship with...physical covering..." or not, is not the point of the passage. 'We and the churches have no such [physical] custom; rather, the reason why I presented you with this [spiritually] important dialogue is because of the angels...'

I've heard countless ppl who have tried to spiritualize, exegete, the phrase "because of the angels." They remain flummoxed by it.

From the OP:

Is a woman required to cover her head today?​

Not with anything physical/material.

Most likely all ancinet religions that had the gods and demigods were based on a corruption of the account of Genesis 6.

Your "most likely" comment is typical, actually a faux pas, back-to-front. The Gen. 6 account is true; "ancient religions" knew it to be true and thus, over time, variations of the story naturally sprung up. Meanwhile, the "gods and demigods" of history are not based in fables. Folks don't know (or didn't know until I posted it) that there are nearly 850 mentions of giants, also, that there is cannibalism, and that there are half-man/half-animal creatures, in the Holy Bible.

Again, lots of naivete in bloom here, as folks simply do not read their Holy Bible with any consistency. Worse, when they do read, they read copyrighted (altered) inventions of men, rather than the pure word, because they listened to said men who claim that their invention is easier to read.

Most just want to argue and deny. Selah.

 

[Anchorite]

I am not convinced that angelic spirit beings can procreate with human females.

This bizarre idea is a favorite with occult circles.

The account in Genesis repeatedly emphasizes that it was men, not fallen angels or human-angel hybrids.

If fallen angels were causing all this trouble, why does God only refer to men?

Why doesn’t God say His spirit will not always strive with the sons of God/fallen angels?



Genesis 6

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

 

[doctrox]

I am not convinced that angelic spirit beings can procreate with human females.

Yeah, that's because the mainstream "Sethite" theory is more comfortable for the so-called churches, so that's the theory we're fed.

This bizarre idea is a favorite with occult circles.

There are lots of "bizarre ideas" to be found as truth in the Holy Bible..

If fallen angels were causing all this trouble, why does God only refer to men?

The offspring that were produced from the bene elohim (sons of God) mating with earthly women did not go off and live on their own. As they grew from "normal" size to their characteristic large stature, there were tribes and entire cities where such "intermarriages" abounded. That's why God forbade those unions AND why the Israelites were commanded to go in and kill every man, woman, child, animal - to remove the corruption. We've all heard so many spiritually ignorant people poo-poo the Holy Bible because they think God is a murderous tyrant. It's also why God spared Noah's 8 (because is genealogy was uncorrupted).

Why doesn’t God say His spirit will not always strive with the sons of God/fallen angels?

As explained above.

"man" was not guiltless in the corruption wrought of the "intermarriages."