Patriarchinity Chapter 12: Covering vs. Cover-ups
by Chris Jacob Schaefer ©2009
Up till now, much of this book has focused upon the identity of the Ruach HaQodesh. Why? She is perhaps the most mysterious Divine Being, and yet most often misunderstood. While it does not necessarily prevent someone from becoming a believer, misunderstandings of Who the Divine Elohim is (and are) can hinder us from the intimacy that we as priests and priestesses need with our Elohim.
So why the secrecy? Why is the gender of the Ruach HaQodesh hidden from plain view, or more accurately, hidden in plain view?
It must be remembered that the husband is a covering over the wife. Even at the beginning of the 20th century, the husband’s name-covering was applied to his wife-- Example: “Mrs. Thomas Edison.” Where did such a practice come from? From the understood subordination of the wife to the husband and husband’s protection over the subordinate wife. So how does that apply to our perceptions of the Ruach HaQodesh? After all, She does the Father’s will, She acts in accordance with Him, She goes where He sends Her, and She serves as His eyes/scouts (Zech 4:10).
Timtheos Aleph/First Timothy 2:12
12 But I do not allow a woman to teach, or to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Timtheos Aleph/First Timothy 2:12 (Lamsa translation from the Aramaic)
“I do not think it seemly for a woman to debate publicly or otherwise usurp the authority of men, but she should be silent.”
The main point is that Shaul/Pallu is affirming the divine order of things-- a husband is over his wife. Naturally it would follow that another man’s wife or a single woman is not an authority over another man (not her husband). [The context is that of handling theological disagreements in an assembly of mortals where both genders involved are subject to imperfections (very unlike divine Elohim). So basically a woman is not to cause a scene.] The overarching principle though is that the man is the default authority over his wife.
To get a grasp on this, it is important to learn about the nature of women’s headcoverings, and then apply that to understanding the Ruach HaQodesh, based upon Her role(s).
Beresheeth/Genesis 24:65
65 For she had said to the servant, What man is this that walks in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a veil* and covered herself.
* (RSTNE Note): Sign of authority and submission.
So, we can see that before Rivkah was married to Yitzchak, she considered it important to show that she was yet under her dad’s authority and protection.
Root/Ruth 3:9
9 And he said, Who are you? And she answered, I am Root your female servant: spread your covering [kawnawf’] over your female servant; for you are a near kinsman redeemer.
And in this instance, Root made a request of Boaz for marriage. Kawnawf literally means an edge or extremity of a wing, garment or bed-clothing; a flap-- which implies that the covering that Root desired, was a part of the covering of which Boaz was covering himself -- either his mantle/cloak or blanket. So in essence, Boaz’ identification was the same identification that Root also wanted for herself. If someone saw Boaz lying down in the moonlight, he would identify the shadowy figure(s) as Boaz even though in reality it would have been both Boaz and Root.
Could it be that the story of Root and Boaz gives us a hint as to why YHWH allowed masculine pronouns to “cover” the Ruach HaQodesh in the Greek manuscripts and Aramaic Peshitta of the Gospel of Yochanan/John?
Song of Shlomo/Song of Solomon 5:7
7 The watchmen that went around the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me.
Here the forcible removal of the woman’s veil by men not her husband nor her children was considered a violation on par with a beating.
Devarim/Deuteronomy 21:10-13
10 "When you go forth to war against your enemies, and YHWH your Elohim has delivered them into your hands, and you have taken them captive,
11 And see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her, that you would have her to be your wife;
12 Then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head, and trim her nails;
13 And she shall put off the garment of her captivity, and shall remain in your bayit, and bewail her Father and her mother a full month: and after that you shall go in to her."
When a woman was captured, her hair was shorn to show that the covering/protection/authority of her former husband had been removed. Additionally the covering/garment that she wore in her native country was to be removed (and susbsequently replaced by the garments of her new residence). It is significant that her former life in her native country was dually considered “her captivity” (as also with the act of capturing her in time of war). But it wasn’t until her new husband brought her into his house that she was no longer considered a captive. So once she was brought into the freedom of her new husband’s house, then that is when her natural covering of her hair was removed, and it is also when the garments of her former captivity were removed. She wasn’t walking about the house naked for a month, so of course she had a new covering on her body and her head; in the meantime, her natural hair covering was growing afresh. When the woman’s hair grew anew, it was a tangible acknowledgment of her having a new husband and her newfound glory. So before wartime, the foreign woman’s hair and garments (which would include a headcovering) represented her original husband’s authority and protection over her; after she was taken by a Yisraelite man, then her replacement garments and new hair represented her new husband’s authority and protection
In the following passage we shall see that in the assembly of believers, when a woman prayed or prophesied without a head covering, it was as if she were taken captive. The question is then: taken captive by who or what?
Qorintyah Aleph/First Corinthians 11:5-15
5 But every woman that makes prayers, or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head: for that is the same as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman does not have a head covering, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn, or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to veil* his head, because he is the image and glory of YHWH: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not from the woman; but the woman from the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the unclean fallen demons.**
11 Nevertheless neither is the man independent of the woman, neither the woman independent of the man, in YHWH.
12 For as the woman is from the man, even so is the man also through the woman; but all things are from YHWH.
13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper that a woman prays to YHWH uncovered?
14 Does not nature itself teach you, that, if a man has long hair***, it is a shame to him?
15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory for her: for her hair is given to her as a covering.
*(RSTNE note) With a hang-me-down veil, or long hanging frontal hair.
** (RSTNE note)T his is a clear reference back to Beresheeth/Genesis 6 where women who were not under a spiritual authority, or covering like the one provided for them by Noah, were molested and had demons that cohabitated with them. Due to the reality of unclean demons desiring to physically violate and emotionally scar women through vaginal entry, women are strongly urged to do
what is proper and not make this a contentious issue
like some who feel this is not important.
*** (RSTNE note) Worn like a woman, but OK for Nazarite vows and such other pursuits of YHWH.
Since a woman’s long hair is her glory, and the shaving of her hair is her shame, then it is obvious that her hair is a clear identifier of her femininity.
Now there is a hidden phenomenon in cultures where women wear headcoverings that is not apparent to the general public. When a wife is in and at home, her husband and children frequently see her without her headcovering-- she has to take it off sooner or later for basic hygene, sleep and other transitions. Other than during the special activities of praying and prophecying, if the wife’s head is occasionally uncovered, it is truly a sign of intimacy between her and her husband and motherly intimacy between her and her children. And when her hair is fully visible to those closest to her, that is when her femininity and glory are most visible.
Likewise, when we as children of Father YHWH are are “at home” and intimate (trusting and obedient) with our Heavenly Mother, that is when She reveals Her Motherly femininity and glory to us in a way that outsiders and even “close relatives” cannot yet see!
When a woman’s hair is covered, there’s a lack of visibility; the essence of her femininity is not as intense as when her hair is fully revealed. Cultures where headcoverings are the norm, are especially attuned to this fact. So similarly, there’s a lack of visibility of the Ruach HaQodesh’s femininity-- this is achieved by the absence of pronouns, specifically feminine pronouns in the majority of Scriptures where She is spoken of. By design, that phenomenon serves as a covering of sorts, because She is under the Father’s authority and direction. Her femininity is really only for Her children to see-- if they are willing to search it out.
However, it is an entirely different thing to altogether cover the woman’s face as is done in some Muslim nations, some of which even cover the eyes with a cloth screen. Hypothetically, if I (as a bearded male) wanted to disguise myself in Saudi Arabia, without shaving my beard, I could easily pass for a woman-- Afghanistan, even easier. The point in such an illustration, is that the woman’s face is also a key identifier to a woman’s femininity. If the face isn’t visible, then neither is her femininity-- especially with the draped garments and eye screens. Western nations and even less fanatical Islamic nations view the practice of covering the woman’s face as oppressive. Oddly enough, there are some instances where the scribes and translators oppressed Scripture by censoring the familial references to Elohim, and in doing so effectively tried to cover the Ruach’s face (so to speak). Let’s take a look at some examples. [In using the ISR in the following examples, I’m not trying to pick on the ISR, it’s generally a good version-- however with the selected verses, nearly all other versions have similar errors.]
The tranlators told us that Yeshayahu/Isaiah 54:5 supposedly said:
“For your Maker is your Husband, YHWH of hosts is His Name, and the Set apart One of Yisrael is your Redeemer. He is called the Elohim of all the earth.” (ISR)
But Yeshayahu/Isaiah 54:5 actually says:
“For your Maker is your HusbandS* YHWH tzevaoth is His Name; and your RedeemerS** the Kadosh-One of Yisrael; The Elohim of the whole earth shall He be called” (RSTNE)
* (RSTNE note) Hebrew: ki baalecha asechah, or “because your Husbands are your Maker.” We see the plurality of one again in the term “husbands.” Also the Maker is YHWH, and His Redeemer, which in the Hebrew is ve goalecha, or literally “your Redeemers.” We see the Father and Son in this verse as one in both cases.
** (RSTNE note) Goalecha, or literally “your Redeemers.”
Most translators never render those key words plural, because, they cannot make sense of it while they remain stuck in the man-made systems of monotheism, untitarianism, or trinitarianism.
So what that passage means by using the term husbandS, is of course consecutive husbands for the WHOLE house of Yisrael. How can this be?
The Torah is the covenant with the Yisrael as a unified Whole house where YHWH is the King and metaphorical Husband of all of Yisrael as a Whole.
In 1 Schmuel/1st Sammuel 8, the entity of the Whole house of Yisrael rejected YHWH as King, but was not yet metaphorically divorced from YHWH, the metaphorical Husband.
Significantly, in 1st Kings 12 The entity of Yisrael as a unified Whole ceased to exist as it was split into the two sovereign kingdoms of Yahudah and Ephrayimic Yisrael. Even though the metaphorical bride of Yisrael became two brides, YHWH did not yet divorce them from Himself at that point, and honored His part of the covenant with each metaphorical bride.
Through idolatry, the entity of the sovereign kingdom of Ephrayimic Yisrael completely broke the covenant with YHWH. So, because of that, YHWH metaphorically divorced the entity of the Ephrayimic kingdom of Yisrael from Himself (Yermeyahu/Jerimiah 8:3).
In Yehezkel/Ezekiel 16 The remaining entity of the kingdom of Yahudah was recorded as becoming even worse than Ephrayimic Yisrael. YHWH sentenced the kingdom of Yahudah, to death for idolatrous adultery-- specifically v 38 and 40. Yahudah no longer existed as a sovereign kingdom, but only existed as a remnant house in exile (Yehezkel/Ezekiel 14:22).
Yehezkel/Ezekiel 23 affirms the capital punishment of the kingdoms of Yahudah and Ephramic Yisrael (hovever a remnant house of Yisrael (Ephrayim but more specifically Yahudah) does remain in v 48 but but neither as a kingdom.
In Yehezkel/Ezekiel 37, the deaths of the kingdoms of Yahudah and Ephramic Yisrael are affirmed as complete where the Yisrael as Whole house is acknowledged as dead in v. 11.
Yisrael as a Whole house is prophesied as being resurrected and re-unified (Yahudah and Ephrayimic Yisrael echad) via the Ruach HaQodesh (Yehezkel/Ezekiel 37). The Shepherd-King [Yehoshua] is central to this reunified and resurrected Whole Yisrael.
As is summarily communicated in the Whole B'rit Hadashah, the resurrected Yehoshua is indeed the metaphorical Husband for Yisrael as a Whole.
So the first covenant was between YHWH and Yisrael as a Whole.
Yisrael as a Whole died (not the remnant). The covenant, while intended for Yisrael as a Whole, then only existed with the remnant. Yisrael as a Whole gets resurrected and re-unified. The faithful remnant is then one with the resurrected/reunified Whole. The New/Renewed covenant was sealed with the blood of Yehoshua, the resurrected Husband. So YHWH was the first metaphorical Husband and Yehoshua is the second metaphorical Husband. There is no breaking of Torah when the Whole House of Yisrael has two consecutive Husbands. Yisrael as a unified Whole entity was dead and then is made alive. Yehoshua, the second Husband was dead, and is made alive. So death and resurrection on both fronts make it possible and kosher for the Whole of the commonwealth of Yisrael to have Two consecutive Husbands.
There is another possible explanation for the word Redeemers in Yeshayahu/Isaiah 54:5. To explain this we must re-examine the word “Comforter” (describing the Ruach HaQodesh) which occurs in Yochanan 14:26 and 15:26.
From Younan’s interlinear Aramaic translation):
1. PRQL+A has been confused with the Greek ‘Paraclitus’, meaning ‘Advocate.’ The Aramaic construct PRQL+A is derived from two Aramaic roots: PRQ (‘To end’, ‘To finish’ or ‘To save’, see Strong’s Concordance entries 6561 and 6562) and L+A (‘The curse’, cf. Marqus 11:21, Matti 5:44, ‘A Compendious Syriac Dictionary’, page 236, and Oraham’s Dictionary, page 250). PRQL+A means ‘One who ends the curse.’ By the indwelling of the Ruach HaQodesh, our
fallen nature has been redeemed from the curse of Adam.
So Redemption is completed both by Yehoshua and the Ruach HaQodesh. Yehoshua by His life, death ,burial, and resurrection; and the Ruach HaQodesh by Her part in the Resurrection of Her Son Yehoshua, and by Her active residence in the bodies of believers. That would make both Yehoshua and the Ruach HaQodesh the Redeemers.
Here are some more examples of censorship.
The Translators told us that Kohelet/Ecclesiastes 12:1a supposedly said:
“Remember your Creator in the days of your youth...” (ISR)
But Kohelet/Ecclesiastes 12:1a actually says:
“Remember your CreatorS* in the day of your youth...” (RSTNE)
*(Hebrew: Et Borecha: your Creators” not just “Creator”).
בוראיך
Eth= Alef Taf
Borecha= Bet + Vav + Resh + Alef + Yud and + Kaf
The scribes told us that Yeshayahu/Isaiah 45:9-10 supposedly said :
“Woe to him that strives with his Maker! (a potsherd with the potsherds of the earth.) Does clay say to him it, ‘What are you making?’ Or your handiwork say ‘He has no hands’? Woe to him who says to his father, ‘What are you bringing forth?’ Or to the woman, ‘What are you labouring over?’” (ISR)
But Yeshayahu/Isaiah 45:9-10 really says:
9 “Woe to him that strives with His MakerS!*(RSTNE) An earthenvessel that strives with Him who made it! Shall the clay say to Him that fashioned it, 'Why did you make it like this?' Or, the handiwork saying to the Maker of it, 'He has no hands?'
10 Woe to him that says to his Father, 'Why did you beget me?' Or, to a Mother, 'Why have you birthed [khool ] me?'”
*Dead Sea Scrolls
Did you catch that? The scribes who came after the Dead Sea Scrolls, REMOVED the plural reference to suit their own preconceived monotheistic notions instead of preserving YHWH’s own henotheistic words!
And with the remez (hint) of verse 10, it is clearly a reference to both the Heavenly Father and the Heavenly Mother. The word birthed (often poorly translated as conceived in most other translations) is the Hebrew word khool which means: to twist or whirl (in a circular or spiral manner), i.e. (specifically) to dance, to writhe in pain especially in birthing. Born again believers are not conceived nor are they re-conceived by the Ruach HaQodesh, but rather, they are re-born or re-birthed by the Ruach HaQodesh.
Most bible translations will claim that Yeshayahu/Isaiah 48:16 supposedly says something like this:
“Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning;; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Master YHWH has sent Me, and His Spirit” (ISR)
But what Yeshayahu/Isaiah 48:16 actually says is:
Come you near unto Me, hear you this; From the beginning I have not spoken in secret, from the time that She was, there am I; and now the Master YHWH has sent me and His Ruach. (combination HRV/RSTNE)
[This verse is covered more in depth in Patriarchinity chapter 6]
As for the "I" speaking in various Tanakh passages, that does not necessarily prove singularity, because One Being can be speaking for the Group and representing the Group-- especially in a Patriarchal system. Not to mention that there are several sections of "I, even I" or "I, and I" which would indicate Father and Son (Beresheeth/Genesis 9:9; Yeshayahu/Isaiah 43:11, 43:25, 48:15). If there is a Father and Son, then Mother is clearly implicit (Yeshayahu/Isaiah 51:12).
Most bible translations will claim that Isaiah 42:5 says something like this:
"Thus said the El, YHWH, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it, and spirit to those who walk on it:" (ISR)
But according to the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Yeshayahu/Isaiah 42:5 actually says:
“Thus says the El AND Elohim who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread the earth and its produce, who gives breath (neshamah) to the people upon it, and spirit (ruha) to those walk on it.”
(The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible – The Oldest Known Bible Translated For The First Time Into English, translated and with commentary by Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich [HarperOne; 1 edition, November 17, 1999], p. 337; ) [bold and capital emphasis mine]
So in the copies that came after the Dead Sea Scrolls, the scribes added the name of YHWH in place of Elohim in that verse (while substituting the name of YHWH with Adonai in many other verses)! The discovery of the Dead Sea Scroll distinction between El and Elohim, in the same verse, DEMOLISHES the popular but erroneous allegation that the word Elohim is supposedly limited to majesty while excluding plurality.
There seems to be a disturbing pattern where Bible translations are all to often distorted to HIDE the obvious plurality of Elohim. This was accomplished both on the part of Jewish Scribes and Trinitarian translators who obeyed their own pre-concieved monotheistic notions rather than the actual henotheistic text!
Just as the Talmudic Jews overcompensate by adding laws that are not in Torah, so did the scribes and translators overcompensate by forcing singularity on a text that did not have singularity. They ripped us off!
So all throughout the entire Tanakh, the Ruach HaQodesh is almost entirely unaccompanied by pronouns, but the lone location where a pronoun does accompany Her, the actual text has the Hebrew feminine equivalent of She (Yeshayahu /Isaiah 48:16).
How does this play into the Gospels? The best testimonies are often from one’s enemies. According to Talmud Shabbat 116A (see suggested reading), there was a discussion how to destroy the Gospels because they contained The Name [YHWH]. So the rabbis debated which was better: meticulously first slicing out every occurrence of The Name from the Gospels and then burning the remainder of the cut up scrolls; or just burning the Gospels flat out. This unmistakably shows that the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew, not Aramaic nor Greek-- otherwise there’d be no discussion about cutting out of The Name). Now Mattityahu/Matthew, Moshe Yochanan/Mark, and Luka/Luke have no pronouns describing the Ruach HaQodesh anyhow. Yet in the Greek and later Aramaic manuscripts of Yochanan/John, there suddenly turns up masculine pronouns for the Ruach HaQodesh? Would that pattern be consistent with the Tanakh? Absolutely not! And it is especially not consistent with the key Tanakh verses that have been restored in spite of the scribes’ and translators’ selective sabotage. Additionally, the Old Syriac Aramaic Manuscripts for Yochanan have feminine pronouns for the Ruach HaQodesh (See Patriarchinity Chapter 11). Certainly the usage of The Name wasn’t the only thing that the unbelieving Jewish establishment found objectionable in the Gospel of Yochanan. Prediction #1: If and when the Hebrew manuscripts for the Gospel of Yochanan are found, there will either be no pronouns describing the Ruach HaQodesh; or if there are pronouns describing Her, they will be feminine pronouns.
As demonstrated in Patriarchinty Chapter 11, there was a 5th Gospel: The Gospel According to the Hebrews. And in it the Ruach HaQodesh was referred to by Yehoshua as His “Mother”. The church “fathers” apparently had access to this portion of Scripture and were sure to scoff and criticize it in their writings (despite it being a favorite of the Nazarenes). Well, what did they do with it? Why is it gone? Did they destroy it with the same hostility as the unbelieving Jews destroyed the Hebrew Gospels? Did the Nazarenes bury it or hide it from their persecutors? Prediction #2: If and when an authentic manuscript of the Gospel According to the Hebrews is discovered, there will be feminine pronouns/words describing the Ruach HaQodesh.
So the questions are: how intimate are we with our Elohim? Are we “at home” enough in the Scriptures that we can see (discern) Mom for Who She is? Can we recognize the Mother who re-birthed us? Or are we relying on the deceit of those who’ve tried to obscure Her identity and glory?
suggested reading:
How they destroyed the Hebraic Gospels.
