Head-Coverings, Gold Jewelry, and reserved seating in the Bible
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 08. 2024
- Why does Paul command women in the bible to cover their heads? Why can't women braid their hair in the bible? Why can't women ware gold jewelry in the bible? And why does the bible say that we can't reserve seats for our high donors?
In this episode of "Doctrine and Donuts" we discuss, head-coverings, Gold Jewelry, and reserved seating in the church. This is a fun flagship episode of Doctrine and donuts be warned that last portion speaking of head coverings is quite odd.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Josh Lewis' Church Kings Fellowship Church
kingsfellowshi...
___________________________________________________________________________________
Michael Miller's Church Reclamation Church
reclamationden...
____________________________________________________________________________
The Greek scholar Daniel Wallace has exegeted this passage perfectly, in my opinion. He states, "The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically." Hence, the real problem.
Modern Christians find every excuse under the Sun to NOT be faithful to the actual meaning of Biblical texts, especially if it offends culturally accepted feminism. Sheeeesh, even one of you guys seemed to be a little sheepish about clearly declaring the Divinely instituted roles mentioned in chapter 11.
Up until the sixties, when the feminist movement began to be outspoken, many, if not most, Western Churches believed in head coverings of some sort for women. Yet today, there are few denominations left that still teach it. On the other hand, Eastern churches still practice head coverings for women. The irony is that most protestants criticize these Eastern, Oriental, and Coptic churches for not following scriptural teaching, but on this topic, I believe the West has gone astray.
Amen!
Well said!
Feminism has. Crept into churches.
Agreed. The text is clear. Cultural gymnastics are needed to make it unclear.
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
It is strange though that the practice of women wearing a head covering was universally practiced by the church until the recent advent of modern feminism. Once the head of the women became more commonly uncovered,so followed the rest of the women's body in society and in the church.
@bryan
Calvin spot on predicted what you described:
"If the loss of head coverings is tolerated, it would have bad consequences... So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more. Than the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left." - John Calvin (from a sermon series on 1 Corinthians 11)
Here is a link to the gospel singing jubilee from the past
czcams.com/video/rnUL6OjbRsw/video.html
If you look through the videos you will see a younger dottie rambo and a younger vestal goodman, and you will see that once upon a time they believed in the old holiness standard of women having long hair, but...
here is another link contrast the old fashion dotti rambo with the modern dotti rambo
www.google.com/search?q=dottie+rambo&safe=active&sxsrf=ALeKk01Ngxalnu9ZglNv-X-uU6vtgcbExQ:1610504630597&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiIs6mj7ZfuAhWxdN8KHddfCwgQ_AUoA3oECBIQBQ&biw=1163&bih=509
you can search for vestal goodman images but most are of the modern vestal and not many of the old fashion vestal.
Here is what happened some preacher started preaching this message
1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
1Cor 11:3-15 talk of hair, and when they began to preach verse 16 only, all of a sudden verses 3-15 were accounted as if they had not even been written.
And buddy that message was just what the women wanted to hear!!! and the men, I grew up in the '70s my hair was longer than many women's hair of the time.
For women, long hair is a chor to keep clean and managed, but when they bobbed it down to hardly nothing it is not so hard to manage, some women can run a pick through their hair and be ready to go in a jiffy.
Basically, they began to preach a relaxed message and discount everything Paul just said prior as a thing of naught.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
The preceding verses that Paul spoke are still biblical scripture are they not? or are we going to get into saying this is scripture and this is not?
what on Earth was the whole point of Paul through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost speaking those things that are a part of our biblical canon if they were to just be cast aside like they had not been inspired to be written.
Psa_56:5 Every day they wrest my words: all their thoughts are against me for evil.
2Pe_3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
What is Peter saying, that there are those that wrest the scriptures to their own destruction!
The opposite argument is to call the former Pharisees, but either what Paul wrote was inspired by the Holy Ghost and is scripture that is profitable for doctrine or it is not. those are your two choices, accept what the word of God says at face value or reject it at face value.
Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mar 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mar 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
Luk 9:23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
This way is about self-denial, the way of the devil is about self-expression, or just about plain old self period.
Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
You can do it your way or God's way, everyone who comes to Christ is making a commitment to walk the straight and narrow way, many are the pitfalls along the way, stray and you fall, stay on the straight and narrow, and there is Heaven at the end.
Men also wore hats. They removed their's, and women followed.
💯 Exactly, a simple study of history proves this.
@@sethhowell3407 Ah a slippery slope logical fallacy! Found it!
Just discovered Remnant Radio.. What a refreshing wind of Beroean discourse! What a sweet refreshing, and uplifting breeze of truth! God bless and continue to enlarge the tent pegs of this precious sorely needed ministry to a desperate darkened world crying out for light and truth
Thank you for doing your show and discussing these topics. In the spirit of sharing for any who may stumble upon this, I'd like to share my testimony:
I felt convicted reading the scripture to wear a head covering. Mind you, I'm not in a culture or church that does this. I wore one all day and took it off when my husband came home. My initial conviction was since a woman's hair is her glory, to cover my glory is to give glory to God. Later I saw that head coverings became a matter of legalism (what kinds, how big, how much of the head/hair should be covered, etc). As I prayed and sought the Lord, He revealed it's the matter of the heart, more specifically, it's the posture of your heart. To cover your head is to declare both to the spiritual realm (who truly understand matters of authority) and the physical realm whose authority you are under (God's) and it actually provides protection to be and declare whose authority you're under. Also, if you are someone who struggles with pride and/or rebellion, the physical symbol of covering your head helps keep you humble. In the same way that in prayer or worship, we sometimes feel the need to physically bow or lay prostrate, to physically cover your head is to posture your heart in submission to the Lord.
If you're curious what I do now, I'm not legalistic about it, but I will often put a covering over my head for prayer and worship. When I don't do so, I check my heart and posture it in submission to my King and Savior
Interesting! Thanks for sharing. God bless you!
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
Hi my name is Tracey. I am from South Africa and watching this episode.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 7…
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue.
Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix.
“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.”
If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold.
This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband.
So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
🥰
So I disagree with you on the head coverings.
For the first guy, I do agree that the covering is a symbol of submission, but I don't don't get how that means we don't need to wear it. You can't figuratively wear a symbol of an attitude-- symbols are supposed to show, otherwise, they wouldn't be symbols.
For the second guy, I understand that the common understanding of science was not as developed at that time, but this is God's word (2 Timothy 3:16) and He isn't wrong. Why would God propagate a false idea? Furthermore, you mention that he says "judge among yourselves" as if Paul is saying that this is just his opinion, but in context it seems that he is making a rhetorical argument because right after it, he says, "Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not nature itself teach you...?"
Also, if it's for modesty from the angels, why would he only mention specific times for the women to cover their heads? Do you believe that angels can't see people except when they are participating in a time of corporate worship of prayer and prophesying? Also, wouldn't God know that uncovered female hair isn't reproductive and doesn't seduce angels (I would guess that it doesn't) and keep Paul from writing that?
I don't mean to misrepresent what your saying, so if what I'm arguing against isn't what you're saying, please don't be mad at me.
P.S. I'm pretty sure that it's a myth that people actually believed the world was flat back then.
Kate the Great hey I appreciate the feedback. No offense taken. Idk that I completely agree with Michael hissers position. But it does have lots of explanatory power.
Few points on head coverings as I see it being under leadership in the local church that does practice head coverings when praying or prophesying in the corporate gathering:
1. Paul uses the same language on Chapter back (judge for yourselves) in 1 Cor 10:13 where he is talking about the very body and blood of Christ. Clearly, Paul is not telling them to actually decide the doctrine for themselves, rather he's being rhetorical. I think this is indisputable.
2. The Greek word for covering in verse 15 is a different word than the first 5 times Paul uses covering or uncovered earlier in the chapter. This is because long hair is given to women as a covering (peribolaion) for their glory, while the first word (katakaluptó) is a physical covering of authority.
3. Paul says nothing of hair length specifically, so I think here is where we could say the length would possibly be cultural. However, a women's hair is not sufficient as a covering (see point 2 as well) because lets replace her hair for covering in verse 6:
For if a woman does not have long hair, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
Seems redundant to see that if a woman doesn't have long hair than she should cut her long hair. Clearly, he's referring to a physical covering in verse 6, not a woman's hair
4. Head coverings cannot be cultural because A. Paul grounds this doctrine in the very relationship of the Father and Jesus B. He grounds it in creation. C. He says it's "for the angels". Vague, but to me, these 3 points dispel any notion of a cultural practice.
5. The antecedent of Paul saying if anyone is contentious that the churches of God have no such practice, he can only be referring back to the rhetorical question of judge for yourselves if this is proper (point 1, it's not proper) which I would argue obviously it's not proper if women do this without a covering and if anyone is contentious, Paul basically says that's too bad because the churches of God have no such practice of women praying and prophesying without a head covering.
I have a few other points but I think these would be enough to say that yes, even though they may not be of first importance, head coverings are for today and should be practiced when a woman prays and prophesies in the church, as well as a man should remove any hat or similar when doing likewise. Even if you hold just to the principle and not the application, this is still extremely damaging for a number of reasons.
@@TKK0812 this is really interesting and well written. I speak as one who is not completely decided on the topic; I would love to hear a proper response to this 🤔
The world is flat...
@@johneagle5324 The world is not flat. That conclusion denies all logic as well as the Bible itself.
So regarding head coverings, are we not going to address the context of what was being addressed to the church of Corinth and what head coverings meant in their culture and still does in many cultures today? We are missing so much here guys. I have loved your content and have been eating it up but here I think we could have done a better job and gone much deeper here.
"Because of the angels" = Gen 6/1 Enoch connection, not Greek Hippocrates sperm theory.
I've been visiting some of the older episodes of this show and I think this would be a good one to take another look at. An interesting discussion for sure!
Yes, i was raised UPC and this needs to be "re-visited"!!
Very disappointing.
Didnt really go into the head covering explanation
I love this channel for many reasons. One of which is that your sense of humor is very similar to that of my peers and mine. LOL
Dr Michael Heiser has given a fabulous explanation of this topic on his Naked Bible Podcast.
He's also an egalitarian that states that women can hold leadership positions over men in the church, a clear heresy when you read 1 Timothy 2-3 and Titus 1. If anything, he's the exact type of person infected by the feminist movement that you'd want to avoid regarding issues like these.
Gee whiz, guys. I waited all the way to the end and you just scratched the surface on the head covering question and pointed us to another person's podcast.
There is a treatise on head coverings by one of the early church fathers (I don't recall who).
I find you guys fascinating and I would encourage you to get to your points more quickly and thoroughly.
16:00 The "borders" are the tassels and the phylacteries are the arm and head straps and the little boxes on the forehead and arm (apparently not so little) with Scripture in it. We are to wear the tassels to remind us to keep the Torah. When the woman with a blood condition touched Yeshua's (Jesus') "borders" she was touching His obedience. We are to be conformed to Him and He is wearing heavenly tassels on the heavenly throne right now. His Torah is rest and protection and blessing and benefit and it is how we love Christ: "If you love me, obey my commandments."
The Scriptures don't ask us to wear straps or boxes etc.. It is as simple as slipping the Commandments in the brim of a hat or a headband. We are to cling to those Ten Commandments, to dwell in them. They are often placed in a hem or a border of a garment.
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
I would love to see this pastor making a mad dash to tackle a prophelying individual ;)
I'm going to check out the podcast you mentioned at the end! There is so much hidden in plain sight, things you never would know unless you're aware of the 1st century context. I have never heard that explanation!
Paul was trying to change the Greek culture because women were considered gods and they were the leaders of their culture, nowhere in the letters to the Hebrews or the Romans did you see this corrections, women were not to cut their hair in the Christian church because women who had short and shaved heads were harlots, now head covering or headship nowadays would be considered Authority, churches that take the Bible literally without considering culture of of the time and who the letters were directed to are religious cults controlling their people and making them slaves which Jesus was against the Pharisees the judaizers 1/3 of the 620 laws against women making them second-class citizens, Jesus raised up women as equals disciples deacons in the church, Jesus was the first to have a woman Mary preach the gospel of the Resurrection to the world. the enemy loves the church quenching of the women crippling half the power of the church, remember we are made in God's image, He created both male and female in His image, Gods power in the church is both male and female together as one, destroying the works of the enemy proclaiming the Gospel of the kingdom of Jesus
Do you have a source for the Damian Thompson thing?
I'm kind of interested.
"... Eve decided to be dis-eved... "
Not only women should cover their heads, Deut. 6:8-9. All children of God should cover themselves for many reasons.
Amen
Great shows
Please go directly to the topic.
You totally lost me at the end.....
I know this is an old video but I have just heard it today for the first time. I specifically looked it up because I had been reading the passage in Corinthians about head coverings and was wanting some clarity on the subject.
Context is very important and I am a little disappointed that you didn't read up to verse 16 which basically concludes the matter. Paul says "but if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God's other churches." NLT
What I read into that is that this is not a command but a custom. Customs change from country to country and time to time. I would appreciate any feedback on this. Thank you
We have no other custom than women praying with their head covered.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 7…
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue.
Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix.
“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.”
If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold.
This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband.
So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
Hercules, testicles, and semen siphoning hair. That got weird quick.... lol
Lol thats some of the weird teaching going around. If you know who Mike Winger is on CZcams, hes an incredibly diligant and thorough Bible teaching here on CZcams. He has an almost 7 hour video on headcoverings. The objections, context, etc. And he does talk about this wild belief people have. Its an awesome video!
Enjoyed the discussion. Nicely explained...Thanks 😊
I really enjoyed listening to this. I would love if the intro music would be different. I almost turned this off because of it. This is my first time listening in :)
Schug Family sorry. I changed the intro 2 months after this video. So all of our future videos have a short intro.
It was there custom back then. We don't have to wear head covering today. It says that a woman long hair is her covering.
This is wrong. It was not the custom in Corinth. That is why Paul had to rebuke the church in Corinth.
@@gillespaling7039 Whether it was custom or not doesn't matter what matters is what the Bible says and it makes no reference to a veil or hat. The Bible states that long hair is the woman's covering.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter This makes no sense, if “long hair” is a head covering what does it mean when men aren’t supposed to have a head covering? Are we supposed to all have skin heads? Was the church wrong in interpreting this issue as an actual head covering for almost 2000 years?
@@gillespaling7039 Ok regarding your second question regarding the church being wrong for so long a time allow me to remind you of Acts 7:47-51 For years God's people built temples but God never asked them to do that. In fact from this passage he was upset with them for doing so, yet he allowed them. Recall Jesus said that there will be other Jesus and other gospels. After reading all of the new Testament I think it should be clear that many people will get many things wrong so much so that even the book of Revelations mentions that it would be continuous until then. Now when you say "the church" who exactly do you picture in your mind? Catholics? Anabaptists? Orthodox Christians? If we are going to go down a trip through memory lane many so-called Christian churches in the past have done horrendous things and have been at odds with each other mainly due to opposing doctrines. The Bible states that only a few will be saved so if you take the biggest churches and compare their beliefs with the Bible you won't find them in sync. So it would be nice to know which is the church for you that you think cannot get something wrong for so long, despite the Scripture saying that certain groups can and will.
Regarding the part that says that men aren’t supposed to have a head covering. Just to be clear it doesn't say the way you are describing it. There is a big difference when saying "head covering" and "a man indeed ought not to cover his head" The first one is synonymous with a foreign object that goes on the head, the second is just the act of not having his head covered. When it says that a man should not be covered they mean not covered in long hair, Note the similarity of verse 4 with verse 14. To be covered means to be covered in long hair and to be uncovered (or not covered) means to not be covered in long hair aka short hair. Therefore there is no act of removing something or taking off something. But I know that someone will say that if there are two acts (praying or prophesying) that appear to imply conditional moments therefore the conclusion is that there is an act of removal or putting something on.
Now I can understand how one can conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 4 and 5 for example, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be another reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4 unless they were meant to be seen as examples? Should he not be covered under any condition because of verse 7? Verse 7 completely takes away the idea that there were only two conditions.
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Your responses are so on point it is scary. Acts 7:47-51 is the perfect counter argument to the idea that the people of God can be wrong for a long time. Biblical evidence 101. Great.
Cooborating is not a word. 17:13 and 17:20. Hope this helps. Denny
You lost me at the end. Where in the book of Esther is that story coming from about the women picking colored clothing?? Also, how can any book in the Holy scriptures be considered raunchy, which by definition is vile, dirty, etc.
Apparently the Bible is so clear but when Paul says women should wear a veil it gets complicated 😂
That's because Paul never mentioned that women should wear a veil.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT use the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. Some will use the phrase “head covering” to claim that the passage refers to it when this phrase is not found in the verses within 1st Corinthians 11:1-16. One can find them separately but not together to mean a synthetic covering. Therefore, it would be disingenuous to say that it does. The passage includes the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions, then why would Paul say in verse 7…
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue.
Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix.
“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.”
If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold.
This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking/attractive) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. The answer of which should obviously be no. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look unattractive and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair while praying looks especially uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). The reason is that they are intermingling the word head in verse 3 that refers to authority with the other word “head” that is being used to refer to the literal head of the human body. One can easily dismiss their interpretation because it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband and that the context includes the idea of hair and the shaving and cutting thereof.
So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. Therefore there are no two coverings just one which Paul refers to as being covered which he means to be covered in long hair.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter doesn’t it make more sense that the veil is a symbolic act of submission. The hair is just Paul’s idea of women should have long hair. But symbolically they should be covered. So the covering is surely not hair.
Either way the point is if Christians can’t agree on this of course there are bigger problems when you get to how salvation works, who will be saved, how, etc…. This should show that just reading the Bible will create separate outcomes bc the Bible doesn’t have a unified message without an outside body maintaining a message
1 cor 11;16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
it was the tradition and custon and culture of those times. nothing else
in 1 pet 3 we read about women coming to the church meetings with plaited hair so women did not cover the hair.
thirdly, the Bible says that everything has to be gounded on at least TWO witnesses. there is only ONE place in the Bible where you read about the head covering and that is also not very clear since we read in the very passage that the hair of women is their covering.
in the new testament we dont follow the traditions of old. we follow Lord Yeshu who set us free from the external things. now the reality is Christ Himself. not the things on the outside
those who wear head coverings rely on the Flesh which is SIN and that is the WRONG REBELLION... thats bondage to sin...
Well said, Amen.
lets focus, on the topic.....er....get to the point...
Hmmm? So, since communion is "symbolically representing" the body and blood of Christ, should we not do it? Same with water baptism? Marriage is even symbolic; Paul explained it was a mystery about the Church.
I believe there are truths (mysteries) that will never be given to us that can strengthen our relationship with the Father and Christ by grace, because we don't trust Him enough to obey those symbolic ordinances. None of God's commandments should be grievous to us, especially if we are truly converted. Satan has worked through the Church by getting us to downplay the simple command of headcovering. God has an order, which men and women always need to be reminded of so sin won't get out of hand, like in the garden.
The issues of head covering & the biblical instruction not to wear jewelry are classic examples of how most "biblical inerrantists" cherry pick the Bible while pretending not to.
💯
I grew up in a church where head coverings were normative. Unfortunately, I don't really have any insight into it. I personally feel that it was a social issue of the time.
I have a hard time with the Heiser approach here because regardless of what men might have thought about biology, GOD understood how human biology does and doesn't work.
I believe this entire passage is about authority and submission, and *not* about "symbols of" submission. Hair is being used as an illustration of the spiritual principle that wives should be "covered" (under authority) and husbands should be "uncovered" (not under authority -- with relation to their wives), because they are representative of God and man (Christ and the church), respectively.
Re: Ancient beliefs on hair length and releasing/retaining sperm... This must be where the myth bald guys are more virile comes from!
😂😂😂
Tradition of man to please GOD was corrupted by man too but most do it right most are doing wrong.. We observe and we see clearly why all these exist.. It really true Jesus said its not works and sacrifice but seeing heart with faith to God.
Head Coverings I believe it has a Godly purpose in a way if we understand why it is existed but others use it i a wrong way like boasting their ways, religion or status..
Jesis only the way, truth and Life
Should a man wear a head covering?
Just as women should cover their head to show they are submitting to their spouse, then men should cover to show they to need to submit to God. If he has chosen Jesus as His Lord, then he should show that commitment by wearing a head covering, just as women show their submission, so should man.
The difference is not the head covering but who wears it and when. In Deut. 6:8-9, God tells us to apply the Ten Commandments on our forehead, then, when Jesus tells us to "keep" also His words, we apply the Sermon on the Mount to show our commitment to The Father and The Son.
A man should never wear a head covering, in church, if they haven't chosen Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. They are not to submit to any man, company etc.. They should remove their head covering before entering a church etc.. To not wear a head covering simply shows that you have not chosen in whom you shall serve.
If a woman is married and the man has not committed to the Lord then she also should not cover, for then she would be usurping the man's authority.
A woman should be covering her head, the man in her life. Every child of God should cover with The Father or The Son, or even the Holy Spirit. The scripture shows that all three would be what we should strive for.
To keep using different translations is what keeps us going in circles. Choose in whom you shall serve, then stick with it. And remember there is an order with God, man should learn who their God is and then try to be like their Heavenly Father, then women follow their head, the man. woman learn from their spouse or the head of the house. That is why they are to ask questions at home from their head.
Our righteousness being as filthy rags in Isaiah is not just as dirty rags but is actually as menstrual rags.
You kind of lose credibility when you say that phylacteries are the tassels, which are actually the tzittziot
The belief that hair was an extension of genitalia would have been a cultural belief. Writing off the idea that something was a cultural belief, and because of that is a danger, is to commit the fallacy of arguing from consequences. Don’t do that.
Paul goes on to say that there is no such custom in the church. And the law that is mentioned is not in the Bible or the law of Moses but in the Oral law of the Jews. Paul was quoting this law in order to establish where this custom comes from and to then answer the question.
Keep studying guys
Wonder how you feel about the head covering now, three years later, Michael Heiser debunked everybodies beliefs by just teaching what the ancient Jewish people believed about male and female hair 😂
"Debunked" is a bit strong. The word of God is divinely inspired. God himself surely understands human biology, and there's no reason he would allow an errant view to influence a key letter covering behavior in church. I hate to suggest a 6 hour video, but Mike Winger covers the "weird biology" argument in detail in his head covering video.
Is there a secret birth control aspect here?
The last minutes of this video ruined it all, all this obscen speculation was horrible to listen to, it was not only exemplary eisegesis, but also some kind of blasphemy against the holy text. You really believe that the Holy Spirit was deceived when He inspired Paul to write that? I just listen to the talks about head-covering and that was the opposite of a historical, theological and exegetical analysis, although the man to left had some good point before the man to the right began that reading.
A particularly ungodly and disturbing intro music
Christian women need to be the ones to recognize the truth in 1 Corinthians 11 and THEMSELVES decide whether or not to wear a head cover. Otherwise, thanks especially to the politically incorrectness of it (thanks to FEMINISM, which is WHEN women started taking off their head covers) -- men would be blamed and accused of lording things over the woman. Women should headcover as a sign of SUBMISSION to GOD'S ORDER, where the Authority (head) over Christ Jesus is the Father; the Authority (head) over men is Christ Jesus; and the Authority (head) over women is the husband. (For unmarried women, Christ Jesus is her husband as stated in the Bible that our maker is our husband.) If a woman does NOT headcover she is DISHONORING GOD'S ORDER. That is how the verses are very clear.
More and more -- very slowly -- Christian women today are beginning to wear headcovering; some only for prayer and prophesying and for wearing at church and others who just go ahead and wear covering all of the time. I love doing it and I even like to wear a covering when sleeping "because of the angels." (smile) It is not easy to do in this day and age. When I first wore headcovering 4 1/2 years ago it was just for four months (but all the time); however I was NOT comfortable with the style or design of the coverings I was wearing and finally felt very frustrated and dropped off wearing them right when I was seriously distracted by a stay in the hospital, etc. Now these years later I am SO glad to have returned to headcovering, this time wearing what feels COMFORTABLE to me. I love linen kerchiefs the best. I also am returning to wearing long skirts and long culottes, because that is clearly feminine clothing and in this strange time in which we are living I feel very good about letting my clothing be clearly feminine as well as modest, abstaining also from makeup and jewelry.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions for them to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered and no one disputes this but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claims that there are more conditions, then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions and would nullify the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this.
Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be another reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should he not be covered under any condition because of verse 7?
Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, we should be asking when they are referring to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered."
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
If the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s the case, then to be uncovered would mean to have short hair. If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter The main thing I believe you are missing in your logic is that you have failed to thoroughly look up each Greek word used for what was translated into "covering" in English Bibles -- because the FACT is that in the verse(s) talking about how a woman should cover her head a DIFFERENT Greek word is used in the original Greek than for the OTHER instances of the word "cover" or "covering" in the very same chapter. You will find that the Greek word used in those cases (or that case -- can't remember right now rather it is used once or twice) MEANS and additional covering, including definitions meaning BOTH "a covering for a covering" AS WELL AS a substance such as a fabric but definitely NOT hair.
Just getting that ONE thing clarified changes everything -- and changed everything for me.
P.S. I have asked myself many times, "But why would the translators have been so careless as to use the same English word for two DIFFERENT Greek words as they did?" I may be wrong, but I came to the conclusion that BECAUSE up until the time of the Bible being translated into English -- even very primitive English in its early phases of being developed -- the "issue" of whether a woman who is a follower of Jesus Christ should cover her head, especially in church was NOT AN ISSUE -- because quite literally ALL Christian women across all denominations were covering their heads in church at the very least (with some choosing to wear coverings even outside of church). They were ALL doing it. It was taken as a GIVEN that women should cover their heads especially when praying or prophesying and therefore definitely at church. A total non-issue. NO ONE was arguing about it; everyone was doing it.
I believe the translators simply did not feel it was necessary to "spell it out" because it was so very well UNDERSTOOD. They did not foresee the feminist movements of the early 20th century and beyond -- which is EXACTLY when MANY women stopped covering their heads, even in church -- and at a time when if a man were to say anything about it, he knew that he would be accused of being a woman hater or "lording" over women.
@@WholeBibleBelieverWoman This idea about having one to read the Bible in Greek has some drawbacks one of which (and the most evident) is that it clearly implies that reading the New Testament in English alone will not bring a full understanding. Also that God did not provide a good English version of the Bible. Such beliefs can cause those who are new or weak in the faith to question everything they read in the Bible, which can lead them to reject the Word of God. Think about this the next time you or someone you know tries to claim that one CANNOT understand God’s word UNLESS they read the Greek transcripts.
FYI: The reason for people to point towards the Greek is usually that they cannot adequately argue via the English translation in an exegesis manner for people to believe and accept their interpretations. Therefore, they will claim that by reading the New Testament in Greek one will find the proof they need to prove their case.
But I have no qualms about researching these things because I have already made a long and arduous study about this topic that I plan to publish. Basically, it comes down to the fact that the words “for a covering” in 1st Corinthians 11:15 in the KJV is translated from the Greek “peribolaiou” which is written only once. Whereas the rest of the Scriptures that refer to “covered,” “cover” or “not covered” in Greek has a variation of another word in Greek “katakalupto,” therefore because “peribolaiou” is written once and is not exactly the same as the other words we are to assume they are not referring to long or short hair in the other verses, but some kind of fabric veil.
As short hair uncovers the woman, and brings shame upon the authority that God has decreed, so long hair provides a covering, plainly advertising her acceptance of the chain of authority that God has set forth. Her long hair thus becomes her glory. Her long hair is given her as (anti - against, instead of, for) a peribolaiou, or “throw-around”. The scholars say that this word is a noun, and means something that is thrown around a thing as a covering. Those who promote the wearing of a veil will point to this word, and render it as veil. However, taken in the context of the entire teaching to this point, the hair is a peribolaiou when hanging down (katakalupto). While hanging down, it becomes a throw-around, as evidenced when a woman tosses her head-the long flowing hair is literally thrown around, and envelops the head, oftentimes partially covering the face.
Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around”. In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the condition first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai.
The entire context of this discussion about authority and headship, and the hierarchy established by God, includes a discussion of long hair on women and short hair on men. There is never a mention of a piece of cloth. Consider: the veil is a man-made device to cover a God-given, natural state. It is an imitation of what God has already provided. The cloth veil was a common article worn by both men and women of the desert lands. It served a practical purpose in that it protected the head, hair, and face from the relentless hot sun and the blowing sands of the desert. It was not commanded by God but was a practical invention. As the centuries wore on, it became a custom among certain cultures and religions. God does not bind man-made customs upon His people as immutable law.
@@WholeBibleBelieverWoman P.S. It is quite a bold statement to say that head covering in the church was not an issue. I would probably say that perhaps the few who were saved probably had an issue. But to take the more prominent churches (regardless of their opposing beliefs) as the status quo of what is true or not. Just the word “denomination” that you mentioned is contrary to scripture based on 1st Corinth 1:10-13. We are all supposed to be in the same mind and judgment and not make separate groups.
One should not take certain similar beliefs that all denominations share as a sign that they were right. Keep in mind that people did not have access to the Bible like we do today. Therefore, for many years people went along with the interpretations of those in charge which were few.
Unfortunately, there are some today that insist that women had been wearing a head covering for centuries and that only recently (within the 1900s) women began to reject this idea, mainly because of an introduction of some evil like the feminist movement as though this somehow supports or gives credence to the head covering interpretation.
But they never consider the fact that about that time more people were getting the word of God into their hands and did not need to rely on the old interpretations many of which were false. As an example, I recall when I was Catholic I was shocked when I read the Bible and found it to be contrary to Catholic dogmas. And they claim to have had the true word of God for centuries! So it was not necessarily because of a movement of evil that people may have changed but because they were able to read with their own eyes the many falsities that their own churches taught for a long time
I refuse to cover my head. NO WAY am I welcome a religious spirit to rest on my body. JS.
I can agree if we are talking about a synthetic covering as opposed to the long hair that is the covering. It saddens me to see some people who are trying to push the misinterpretation that the Bible is referring to a hat or veil when they are simply referring to long hair.
Brother for nearly 1900 years all the church body was in agreement in this.. read some of the early church people who were discipled under john! No its says a symbol.. he bring the hair length into because he says headship is even rooted in nature.. just like a women has long hear.. its a veil to her.. it shows that she is under men and men have short hair.. no viel because they are under christ.. this was counter cultural in there time period.. jewish men and other pagan men would were coverings like a cap.. Paul goes against that culture..
"I refuse to love my wife and lay my life down for her, washing her with the word as Christ does for his church. NO WAY am I welcoming a religi--" oh wait.. It's not about religion. It's about honoring the beautiful differences between men and women that God created. Equal in value, different in roles.
Kudos to you. People here are so religious that they can no longer discern that this false idea of head covering is not of God. There is no verse to prove that it is "honoring the beautiful difference between men and women" Sounds nice but it is completely made up. I wish people would just stop adding ideas to the Word of God. Paul was referring to hair that women ought to cover their heads with long hair. I don't understand why people want to complicate something so simple. Read verse 15 and stick to that people.
If you guys are the remnant then that means Hitler's in heaven too.