Head Coverings (1 Corinthians 11) - Part 1 - 119 Ministries
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 08. 2024
- What’s on your head, or isn’t, could bring shame on the Messiah. What was Paul talking about in 1 Corinthians 11 when he talked about head coverings and dishonoring the head? Join us in part 1 of this teaching where we begin with an examination of this verses contextually.
www.119ministr...
Follow the above link to partner with 119 Ministries and support ongoing free teaching production.
If you would like to discuss this video with us, we invite you to join the discussion on the teaching page found on our website or reach us privately through the Contact Us form on our website: 119ministries.c...
Thank you so much for your continued and prayerful support. May YHWH bless you and keep you.
Shalom
I think we all need to remember everyone’s walk is their walk with Messiah and to submit to Yahuah! I wear one because that is what The Most High instructed me to do. Sometimes we are more worried about other peoples walks than our own. Pray and seek -Do your OWN research in the matter, let The Father guide you!
I also now wear one because I realize He had been telling me to do so for years but I didn't fully understand it and thought it was my own heart telling me to do so out of perfectionism. it wasn't until two weeks ago when I started to work on my own channel videos that He VERY clearly instructed me to wear one! And He has been unveiling SO much truth to me about why and how He is blessing me (and other women) through this act of obedience to Him! It's been really cool.
I think everyone needs to remember there is one faith not many and all this personal stuff is a excuse to not follow what he says
@@Supernaturalseamoss “every man’s way SEEMS right in his OWN eyes.” I concur with Elise, “...work out your own salvation WITH FEAR and TREMBLING.” GOD is not mocked, but HIS mercy triumphs over judgement. Bless HIS NAME that is above every other ideology!
The unfortunate thing nowadays is how this church tradition must be left up to personal convictions. If we noticed the letter to the Corinthians, Paul is not writing them to people's personal convictions, but something for the entire church to practice worldwide. It's such a simple practice that has staggering symbolism the world and the church hates today. Paul said there is no other practice in all the churches of God, but here we are today allowing the contentious ones to have their way in the assembly; reducing a normal practice down to you-do-you theology.
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 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 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 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 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. 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 a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? 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. Again, 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 exclusive 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 give a pleasant appearance 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.
If it wasn't for $119 ministries 13 week Torah teaching I was not even have the knowledge I have now and they are amazing people doing their very best
לא תענה ברעך עד שקר
In 1 Corinthians 11:6 - Cutting the hair is not the actual word in the original greek text. The actual word in the original greek text of Holy Bible - God's Eternal Word is shorn. Shorn means cutting close to the skin with long scissors as with shearing a sheep. It is not trimming of hair as cutting with scissors as barbers do usually, but full cutting of hair in full length close to the scalp that is why it is equated with being shaven in the same verse. In the previous verse in 1 Corinthians 11:5 says that a woman who doesn't cover her head is same as being shaven - because the long hair of women is her covering. To cut that long hair short to be like men is rebellious, ungodly and unscriptural and so such women should go the whole extend and cut off all her hair and thus remove all the God given covering for her which was her long hair.
May God bless all to see the truth and reality and fear and trust in God and his eternal words - Holy Bible by trusting in Lord Jesus Christ so that they may escape the coming God's judgement of 7 year great tribulation and eternal hell fire after that and spent their eternity with God who created and sustains them till this day which is the eternal life. Bible study aid link given in the about section of this youtube profile is helpful for all who are reading and studying God's eternal word - Holy Bible , because mistranslations and deliberate vain misinterprations of holy scriptures - God's eternal word - Holy Bible for selfish gains has been exposed and dealt with clarity in that Bible study aid blog. May God bless all who read this...
@@rokin02 Regarding the hair you are definitely on point the problem arises only when others try to incorporate the idea that the covering being referred to is a separate synthetic head covering
I absolutely agree with it. Because of 119 Ministries I learned much more after some few videos, as I learned in my whole time as a "christian"... Its the best and honest channel I ever know. Because of you I can be a "full" thora-obedient Jew and believer in messiah in the same time... Never want to be a main christian again... All these conflicts which I had, hoping to find a proof, that living by thora laws is valid even until today, are solved now because of your ministry...
Now my soul delights... the next days I hope my tallit with blue tzitzit will come to my house for example... never was so happy to start my new jewish journey.
May HaSham bless you and all my dear brothers and sisters. Shalum.
@@user-mb5ss1li2j it is good that you have left lawless Christianity. I also would like to gently guide you away from thinking that you have to be a Jew .. that is a made-up word and Judaism is also one of those religions like Christianity with man-made dogma. Yehudi is the original word which meant from yahuda, not a religion. We should be calling ourselves Natsarim... There was a documentary on CZcams called the Natsarum documentary. The first Hebrew believers in Messiah were called Natsarim. It means the branches. Please watch that documentary so you can gain more understanding of who you are in YAH. You should also call Our Father by his name 🌹
When I was a child in the 50's and 60's, there was no issue, women wore veils or hats in church whether Protestant or Catholic. However, this all changed about the time when Woman's Liberation started having influence. I don't think this was a coincidence.
In your part of the world that may have been the case. But not for others who lived in the 50's and 60's in other parts of the world who never even seen a woman wearing a veil.
@@JohnYoder-vi1gj True... the world does not revolve around the Western culture
God truly loves men
Proponents of the head covering often point towards church history meaning that there is “historical evidence” within the church (whatever church that may be) that this doctrine was applied for a very long time. Many proponents insist that women had been wearing a head covering for centuries and that only recently (within the 1950s or 60s) did women begin to reject the idea, usually because of an introduction of some evil like the feminist movement as though this somehow supports or gives credence to this interpretation.
They never consider the fact that about that time more people were getting the word of God into their hands and as a result the possibility that they discovered that the old interpretations, held by many of these contradicting churches, were false.
As an example, I recall when I was Catholic, I was shocked when I found the Bible to be contrary to Catholic dogmas. And they claim to have had the true word of God for centuries! It is logical to think that as more people read the Scriptures with their own eyes, they would naturally discover many false doctrines pushed by many sects and even within their own church. So, one cannot just assume that one specific and small movement or event caused many to reject this or any other doctrine.
Still, many veil promoters will be bold to claim that no Christian or Christian group ever thought that the covering was long hair and not a veil. That such an idea only existed within the last few years. This seems to be a very narrow-minded way to think that no one ever thought that long hair was the covering for over two thousand years. Yet they will declare it as though it were a proven fact but when confronted no one that I have spoken to has been able to logically describe HOW they came to this conclusion with proof. Most people tend to make outlandish claims but never do research to prove these claims.
As mentioned previously head covering promoters argue the mere fact that certain women wore veils, bonnets, or hats in the past is evidence of the alleged head covering doctrine. But one cannot prove that women (in general, not just Christians) who covered their heads in the past did it because they were supposedly following a “Christian” rule. If one must resort to going outside the scope of the scriptures to prove their point, then isn’t it possible that their biblical evidence was likely very thin, to begin with?
They often add that many ancient pictures or paintings, whether they be religious or not, show women wearing some kind of physical head covering. But what people did in the past is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches; plus, people wore headwear for all sorts of reasons, and it doesn’t mean that they were abiding by what they interpret the Scripture to mean. The idea (if it can be proven) that more women wore fewer hats or veils today than in the past is not a sign of anything, whether they be Christian or not. It doesn’t prove people were breaking any so-called “biblical” rule if you first don’t prove that there was a rule to break to begin with!
Let me give you a couple of examples that eliminates this logic: The fact that people believed in using CRUCIFIXES, STATUES, RELIGIOUS PAINTINGS, or performed INFANT BAPTISMS or any other “religious” work for CENTURIES does not mean that we ought to accept them.
The long-time practice of a questionable doctrine is NOT evidence.
It should go without saying that these examples are either not in the Bible or in contrast with scripture. False doctrines have been around for centuries; and YES they were preached in the pulpits. Therefore, how can anyone use paintings, photos, or even post-biblical writings to prove their interpretation of Scripture to be correct? All it shows (like crucifixes, statues, and infant baptisms) is that people can be wrong for a very long period. So, is it possible that nearly 2,000 years' worth of preachers and bible scholars got it wrong? Of course, just like they did with infant baptism, purgatory, Christian statues, Popes and the belief that they are infallible and more. And they were even preached by Scholars!!
The Bible even mentions the long-time practice of temple construction but even though God allowed it to happen he was NOT in agreement with it as one can easily see God’s disdain of the practice. (Read Acts 7:47-51). The New Testament already mentions several instances where people were misinterpreting the Scriptures and teaching false doctrines. If the Bible is telling us that this would happen then why act like it would be hard to believe that splinter groups formed and followed their OWN interpretations that would last for centuries?
Even with biblical facts people will continue to find it hard to believe that the people could be wrong for so long. The thing that I find most interesting is when they throw around the word “church” as if one should KNOW what they mean. The first logical response should be ‘Which church are you referring to? Catholic? Protestant? Anabaptist?’ All of which oppose each other by the way. Who exactly is being referring to when they say “church?” Most of the time people are sidelined by this when confronted because they haven’t made any real effort to know what they mean by “church,” when they say the church was following such and such doctrines for a long time. And when they start to add certain churches that contradict scripture. The logical response should be: ‘Why put your trust in them?’
Churches that follow a certain doctrine for an extended length of time are not proof of anything unless it stands firm within the scriptures. Our faith should be based on rock-solid verses, not because some churches were following similar beliefs, or the flimsy writings or etchings of man. Again, what the people did, however long ago, is not proof that what they practiced was biblically sound.
Thanks for the information this is def something to think about.
"Male authority was established after man sinned" is contrary to what Paul wrote. He said that the husband's authority was based on the nature and purpose of the creation of man and woman, not on their sin. So male headship was part of God's perfect plan from the very beginning.
Man is good. Woman is bad. God loves men.
Lesson starts at
2:11
I don't think this is quite accurate. It seems like y'all are stretching scripture to fit what we prefer to be the answer for cultures sake.
im in disagreement on this teaching due to the Becauset he angels and didn't bother to find out what that was about. just assuptions. im going to need precepts not opinion
The Word of God does not change, we do. Both sides of most things can be debated on. When it comes down to it, we usually decide based on how we “feel”. However, we should be asking for discernment and guidance for the truth. Not “my” truth, not “your” truth, but the truth of the Word. I have felt convicted to wear a head covering for almost five years. It has been completely humbling. I used to be very vain about my hair. At times my flesh tries to talk me out of it. I have to rebuke those thoughts. It has been an outward symbol to the spiritual covering, as above as below.
We need to stop siding with what is easy and our feelings. What is the best translation of the Bible? Hebrew. That is right. We need to remove our modern day, Western mind set and look at the customs and culture of Biblical times to better understand the Bible. I am sorry that I cannot articulate it correctly, but I see 1 Corinthians 11:6 reads for married woman to wear a head covering.
Thank you for your research and the time you have put into this teaching.
I pray you all ask for discernment and truth from YHVH on this matter.
Blessings, Shalom.
Have you noticed over the years modern churches have done away with washing of feet, communion, speaking in tongues, allowing for the spirit to move because their in a time crunch or don’t want visitors/new believers to freak out of what’s happening, biblical feasts, etc…. This why I only stick to scripture and guidance from the Holy Spirit 🙏🏻🕊👑🔥
I have been covering about e months and I agree it is very humbling!
That's a great point about head coverings related to humility and I think it's wonderful to come to that personal conviction. I often wonder though if a culture forces a covering upon you, how is that supposed to lead to true humility? It's truly a blessing to have the freedom to be able to make these decisions of our own free will🙂
@@poophandle I believe it's a personal conviction and it is my choice whether I cover or not. I'm actually the one who brought it up to my husband to see if he minded. I can't explain it to someone that doesn't have the conviction. But just because you have the conviction not to cover it doesn't make it wrong for me to cover. It's a constant reminder that I do look set apart and people are watching and it helps me keep myself in check. And it also opens up the door for discussions. I think it's so precious too that my husband is the only one who gets to see my hair. That's my gift to him.
@@maryshalom33 our church does footwashing, memorializes the feasts, & we do communion once a year during Passover.
I wear one, mainly because I need to remember to stay under the covering of the Most High. The enemy is always lurking around, trying to find a way to get us to come out from under it , so that his attacks then become effectual.
i disagree with this simply bc of the " becasue the angels " reference. its too vague
I’ve been newly convicted to do this and what I have found is that it helps me remember to be subject to my husband and keep my attitude in check.
Same ❤
There’s different levels to modesty. I wanted to go back to the roots of head coverings and why Christian’s and at one point every culture veiled. The Bible doesn’t say much about head coverings so I decided to find more from the root (Jewish side) on head coverings. I found that the origin of veiling is in the Jewish Sotah ritual which is a ceremony described in the Bible that tests the faithfulness of a woman accused of adultery.
According to the Torah the priest uncovers or unbraids the accused woman’s hair as part of the humiliation that precedes the ceremony (Numbers 5:18). From this, the Talmud (Ketuboth 72)(which is Jewish traditions and commentary) states that because of this under normal circumstances hair covering is a biblical requirement for women
The Mishnah in Ketuboth (7:6), however says that hair covering is not an obligation of biblical origin. It discusses behaviors that are grounds for divorce such like “appearing in public with loose hair, weaving in the marketplace, and talking to any man” and calls these violations of Jewish rule as opposed Mosaic rule. This categorization suggests that hair covering is not an absolute obligation originating from Moses at Sinai but is a standard of modesty that was defined by the Jewish community.
The views of most orthodox Jews on veiling is kind of wild. Apparently, most Jews believe that the hair has energy, lis like an antenna , and gate
“From the hair of a person you can know who he is…” (Zohar, Naso, Idra Rabbah 129a).
Long or short, hair is very deep. It’s like the body and soul’s antennas transmitting energy from a higher realm, while also exuding the deepest, most inner parts of one’s being. The hair acts as conduits for our light and energy. I have seen numerous young women changing as they learn Torah in our program. The first thing to be affected when a person undergoes transformation is the hair. Hair is even affected by our moods. It could change from frizzy to wavy, stand out or lie flat. Rabbi Yehuda said, the hair of the head of the [married] woman that is revealed causes another hair to be revealed {that is the power of the sitra achra that clings to the hair}… (Zohar Chelek 3, Daf125b-126a). Rabbi Chaim Kramer, in Anatomy of the Soul, explains that the Hebrew word for hair שער/sa’arhas the same letters as the Hebrew word for שער/sha’ar- gate. The hair of the head corresponds to the gates, for they are outside the head, protecting all that is inside, as a gate protects a building from outsiders. Before a woman is married, her ‘gates’ are open to allow the man of her life to enter. A married woman, however, needs to close her ‘gates’ in order to guard the holy union with her husband from every outside intruder. Even a woman who is no longer married needs extra guarding of her ‘gates.’ Once her ‘gates’ have been entered, and her private parts opened, she becomes vulnerable to extraneous forces. Only the man who holds the key to her ‘gates’ must be allowed in. “
If Jews at one point believed this and a lot still do it makes me wondering if this is why Paul said women should cover their hair when praying and prophesying because of the fallen angels since he probably also had full knowledge of the oral Torah? Assuming he followed the oral Torah as a Jew at one point.
Galatians 2:14
This was well stated and presented!!! The message was clear & consis, so WONDERFUL to listen to!!! It was VERY REFRESHING. Thank you for this message, I will be looking for the rest of this series.
I am editing my comments after reading the comments below. I also cringed at the word church, but am intrigued to look further into authority of leadership (elders & deacons) established in the scriptures to gain better understand because of this teaching.
I too immediately thought about the angels mating with women when that portion was discussed.
There are no chapter breaks. It's a letter, and to dial in on only certain parts of it is to ignore the context.
Head covering in prayer..it says prayer..although I don't always cover my head..but I understand this head covering in prayer..has to do with covering of the head when we pray.
See Numbers 5 v18, look at the strongs for the word Uncover. It is not shaving, cut or remove but, Let Loose. Look at different translations for this verse. Is this the removal of a head covering?
Shalom Francois,
Thanks for reaching out. Have you used Blueletterbible.org? This is a great tool for looking up words. You may be interested in looking up uncover, if you are, here is the link to the word. www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h6544/kjv/wlc/0-1/
Blessings to you and yours...
@@119Ministries Shalom 119, still not getting this teaching. If a woman who was unfaithful(adultery) should appear before LORD with hair uncovered according to the Torah(Numbers 5:18), and in the book of JAMAES 4:4 tells friendship with the world is adultery , And going before the LORD in prayer or prophesying, better yet going to church with head uncovered signify you as an adulter for women?.
This message sounds strongly similar to messages from Jehovah Witnesses
There was quite a bit of key words like “seems like”, “seems to be”, “this could be”, “may mean”, “Likely”, “not necessarily”, etc...
Some call it, scriptural gymnastics.
Bending the scripture to make it seem like it means something other than what it directly states.
You know, like Matthew 24: 35-37. JWs claimed those verses didn’t mean what it states and claimed they knew the date or dates in their case of when the world would end.
However, they kept changing it, because they claimed a NEW LIGHT was revealed to them (Excuse for misinterpreting the bible verses) after each time their false prophecy didn’t come true.
Another example is the Sabbath. Matthew 5: 17-18
We should all know how people claim those verses don’t even apply.
The only thing missing was saying that “we as Jehovah Witnesses, oops 119 ministries follow this...
It all seems like this was made to justify something the group feels they will be called out on and need to put something out to justify the choice of not wanting to wear head coverings.
Bottomline is this.
If the scriptures state something that you feel may be hard to follow, don’t work so hard in proving that it doesn’t mean what it says.
Accept that it may be difficult for some and pray for help to do God’s will.
I do have respect for 119 Ministries.
They have put out content that was very helpful, but this seems like a far reach that wasn’t even necessary.
Now I have some doubts.
I’ll pray on this and see where things go from here.
I completely understand where you're coming from when an organization states that they and they alone have the "truth". But I do think that 119 doesn't believe they know everything and that it should be tested in the scriptures for our personal benefit.
@@poophandle Testing scriptures is one thing, but all this does is cast doubt on people wearing head covering.
They could have easily stated this was an topic has come up and there is no right or wrong choice in wearing head covering and it's the choice of the individual. Then state each side of the argument. This was one sided and implied you should not wear head covering.
@@justdfacts33 IMO they were reassuring Christian women that they are praying the right way. There is another person on here casting doubt on the Christian women majority that are NOT praying with the head covering. That is very judgmental, and would condemn the majority. I don't believe it's wrong to wear a veil, or right to wear it. The scriptures seem to be about hair length and cultural norms anyways. The point is coming to God in prayer with humility and respect for the individual God created you to be.
Yes they are failing. Go watch the teaching on this exact subject 5 years ago… it’s way better. I don’t like how the ministry is turning. They were great food for the body at one point, now they are sour. I encourage you to really dive in and pour out to your local believers. As thos people you can actually know and observe their character over a long period of time. Who knows what going on behind the scenes at 119. I’m realizing they are not going to be there when the power goes out. So they are becoming less and less important to me as a type of fellow ship because I personally can’t find one that would tolerate Torah observance.
(poophandle)
The only thing is the passage does not make an appeal to culture, but rather creation order established in Genesis. Additionally the words used for head covering referencing hair AND veiling! It’s not hair alone. Head covering was always a scriptural practice until feminism came along. If I recall there was a movement called the “Easter Bonnet Revolt” or something like that. The culture was granted permission to dictate scripture...just as is done today.
Orthodox Jewish women who do not care what Paul said still cover their heads today…,,,.there is truth in covering at least for times of prayer.
Ahmein sister!! Blessings be upon you in His Wonderful Name and Authority!
Is it tradition or is it law? Is it guidance or is it a command?
@@zelxos3360 While everyone argues semantics I’ll continue to cover my head to pray because Paul was sent by God with his message, so it’s God approved. No one is going to hell over a head scarf but I believe I’ve gained from obeying this.
@@ShadySprings1217 and that's okay, traditions can be fruitful but it's important not to add commands
Orthodox Jews admit they do not cover their head because of the Torah, its a man-made rule
This is really confusing.
If the man's head is Yeshua, and he should not pray with his head (Yeshua) covered; how will a man uncover his head (Yeshua)?
I would like to know this.
Exactly.
It is just something that Paul says I believe or the catholics messed with. There is nothing in the Torah that I have found and if it was wrong for a man to have long hair, He wouldnt have commanded them NOT to cut their hair for a Nazarite vow.
@@serdlc64 I think the Nazarene Vow was an exception to the rule of men not having long hair.
When Paul basically conveys that long hair is for WOMEN & that shorter hair is for MEN, he most like was drawing a principle from Torah (Deuteronomy 22:5) that men shouldn’t wear what belongs to a woman and vice versa.
Paul most likely applied the Spirit of the Law of Deuteronomy 22:5 and not so much the Letter of it.
It could be possible that there’s two “heads” being mentioned here. If a man prays with his PHYSICAL head covered, he dishonors his SPIRITUAL head which is Yeshua.
@@QueMari It's also possible that there is some cultural context missing here. Paul seems to spuriously mention later in (1 cor 11:) the order of man and woman and the role of each one (Roman and Greek religious worship told a creation story of Eve first, then Adam). Also noteworthy is Paul stated that if there were any contention in the church with the hair coverings, there should be no rules made on these issues.
if a person does the law outwardly, but not in their heart they are like a woman who covers her head but is an adulteress, but a person who keeps the law inwardly, also keeps the law outwardly, so likewise should a woman who submits to her husbands authority inwardly.
The only reason a woman does not want to cover her head is vanity, the world knows how women use this part of their beauty to draw attention to themselves. This is why marketing uses womens hair very consistently to great effect on both men and women. But a humble woman, does not need to show her beauty to the world .
I think there is some modern western opinion in the perspective of this teaching.
The only reason a woman does not want to cover her head is vanity??? Chapter and verse please? Oh you don't have biblical proof? Then why make such outlandish accusations? The BIble says the God gave woman long hair for a covering that;s 1st Cor. 11:15. Did God give Eve a veil to cover her head as well as the clothing to cover the body. Oh that's right that can't be proven either. You would think that God would have given her a hat so that as YOU put it "not need to show her beauty to the world." or that Jesus wouldn't have allowed the woman to wipe his feet with her hair. When you misinterpret the word covering to mean a veil instead of the fact Paul was meaning LONG hair then it becomes very easy to prove how wrong this interpretation is. Oh yes there is more proof. Just follow the Word and don't follow man's interpretation as you will get other doctrines wrong also. God bless.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter tidk tidk, the tactic of over specificity is a weak one "where does the bible say this exact thing", well lets retort with, show me in the old testament where is says exactly that messiah has to fie for your sins???? just a hint it doesnt, in fact it says many time each shall die for their own sins. You have to read into the symbolism to get the conclusion of that.
Other than banity, give me one real reason? And I also have history and scripture to support my position, it is well documented how women in Jesus/Yeshuas day kept their hair, heck the movies get that much right most of the time. And just because her hair was covered, does mean she couldnt dry his feet. BUT. Lets explore that, have you ever tried to dry something with hair?? it doesnt really work, hair doesnt absorb water, ever time I have seen it attempted a towel is used to actually do it after the hair is wiped, but if she had a covering on her hair then the two would work together.
did god give eve a covering? I have one back did the clothing god gave them cover her breasts? fact is you dont know, so does that mean she went topless? You dont know, but could he have given her something, yes he could have , did he? we dont know but we dont know if she was topless either.
Paul, the culture, Yeshua not saying anything against that aspect of culture, and the accounts in the OT and the symbolism supports my view, nothing in any of those supports yours.
mic dropped here.
Sorry, but I cringe every time I hear you say the word "church" as it is one of the biggest obstacles hindering Christians from coming to understand their true identity. The Greek word for "church" is not ekklesia. Please do a much needed study on this word/topic! Thanks!
the word cover crumbles this entire interpretation.. it seems quite clear that if a man COVERS his head, he is insulting Yahweh, if a woman UNCOVERS her head, she is also dishonoring.... it seems clear that the COVER component of the verse is the operating one, thus making these other interpretations problematic... women should cover their heads as a sign of being under the authority of their husband and as a sign of chastity... this has always been like this, for thousands of years, until modernism has turned women into prostitutes. If we follow Yahweh and His commandments, all will return to normal.
I agree that the major issue is that some have made a distinction between the words "covered" and "uncovered." If a woman is to cover her head and long hair is the covering according to verse 15 then isn't it logical to understand that Paul is saying that the woman is to cover her head in long hair? Of course the counterargument to that is the fact it states that a woman is to cover her head while praying and prophesying and that men are to do the opposite. So there is a false "appearance" that such things were to be done only under two conditions. But that is not what we read. It doesn't say the word "only" and when we read further it says another reason men shouldn't cover their heads is because he is the "image and glory of God" so there goes the two-conditional argument. One assumes that there are two conditions when one can easily argue that Paul was giving just two examples. In that it would look off if a woman doing something holy LIKE praying and prophesying while having such a short haircut and the same can be said for the man with long hair. Logic also dictates that if a woman must wear a cloth covering based on two conditions then doesn't that imply that she CAN be without it if she were to do something else like say cast out demons, talk in tongues, or interpret tongues etc. This head covering doctrine fails once one put things into logical perspective.
Another question.
Do you discredit the KJV because it uses ordinances and ESV uses traditions.
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
1 Corinthians 11:2 KJV
What it comes down to, in my opinion, is ordinances/ traditions are to be kept so long as they don't hinder the gospel message. Paul was giving an ordinance to a specific church (or perhaps a few). Later in 1 Cor 11, he states that "if there are any contentions, I make no such ordinance in the church". Paul in another book writes "submit to every ordinance of man", which just means follow the laws, but in both cases, we should only follow the laws so long as they don't interfere with God's word.
@@poophandle You said "Later in 1 Cor 11, he states that if there are any contentions, I make no SUCH ordinance in the church" No SUCH ordinance? That is a poor translation that tries to force the cultural argument onto the text. Paul told the women to wear the head covering because of the "angels" and men are to not have long hair because it goes against "nature". Did you see that? Nature and Angels = A much broader scope. This is for all of Elohim's Assemblies. 1 Corinthians 11:16 (RSV) ~ If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize NO OTHER PRACTICE, nor do the churches of Elohim. (NASB Translation) ~ But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have NO OTHER PRACTICE, nor have the churches of Elohim. (AMPLIFIED Translation) ~ Now if anyone is inclined to be contentious [about this], we have NO OTHER PRACTICE [in worship than this], nor do the churches of Elohim [in general]. Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was giving an ordinance to ALL of Yah's people. Let's stop reasoning around clear biblical instructions.
@@StraitwayLife We will have to agree to disagree here. Paul seems to be appealing to the cultural norms of hair length here when he says "does not even nature itself teach that long hair to a man is a shame to him" (Implying men had short hair then). Also, if we are to assume Paul is speaking of veils/cloth head wrappings and it is a commandment of God, we are to doom the 99.9% of Christian women who are not holding fast to that tradition currently today. I do not want to be in that seat of judgment towards our sisters in the faith.
* Starting Off on the Right Foot…
It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. Therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise.
* Where the problem usually begins…
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for not doing so and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off.
Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered (meaning has short hair) would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair “without” a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved.
* Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, 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."
If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair.
* You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking….
If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to:
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ”
I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
People are trying to hard to go beyond God’s Word. When we have to create our own explanation, it dilutes the Word when the information is already there. If you read the scripture, you will see that before Paul goes into detail about having covering, he clearly states who that covering is. For Jesus, His covering is God. For man, his covering is Jesus. For woman, her covering is man. The woman must have a covering, if she is to pray and prophesy (which is man). For man, he is to not place a covering over himself because Jesus is his covering. The hair example is simply that, an example. Most women value long hair, so Paul compares the woman not having the covering of a man to having her hair shaved off. He uses the same example for man because it is very unusual to see a man with hair like a woman. This is why Paul said for a man to have hair like a woman is a shame. In current times, people have accepted everything and you see more men with long hair. As a man, I can’t place an authority over me because Jesus is my Authority, my Head. As a woman, it is a disgrace to not have a man in authority over you as your head. A man covering his head is simply blotting out Jesus as his Head. A woman going into prayer and prophecy without placing a covering on her head is a disgrace. Please share your thoughts.
Very confusing teaching.
So what is the "tradition" that Paul passed onto the Corinthians which reflects the Authority structure of YHWH which can be seen in nature in regards to the hair?
I felt as though 119 is using the spiritual reality to null and void any practical application. If I was a woman I would think you're telling me to be married to apply this practically.
I think the major issue is that some have made a distinction between the words "covering" and "long hair" when it seems like they are both the same. So if a woman is to cover her head and long hair is the covering then isn't it logical to understand that Paul is saying that the woman is to cover her head in long hair? The counterargument to that is the fact it states that a woman is to cover her head while praying and prophesying and that men are to do the opposite. So there is a false "appearance" that such things were to be done only under two conditions. But that is not what we read. It doesn't say the word "only" and when we read further it says another reason men shouldn't cover their heads is because he is the "image and glory of God" so there goes the two-conditional argument. One assumes that there are two conditions when one can easily argue that Paul was giving just two examples. In that it would look off if a woman doing something holy LIKE praying and prophesying while having such a short haircut and the same can be said for the man with long hair. Logic also dictates that if a woman must wear a cloth covering based on two conditions then doesn't that imply that she CAN be without it if she were to do something else like say cast out demons, talk in tongues, or interpret tongues etc. This head covering doctrine fails once one put things into logical perspective.
When did Paul become a writer of Torah???
Thank you so much!
Paul is perfectly clear, hair is given her for a covering.
A woman should not pray or prophesy with short hair for it is the same as if she was shorn(shaved bald) in that it dishonors her husband. A man should not pray or prophesy with long hair, it dishonors Christ. and is shameful.
I honestly do not know how people get that confused. Other than they over analyze it, God is not an author of confusion, Sometimes overthinking it is a bad thing, this is a picture perfect case.
Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
Paul sums up exactly what he meant in the previous verses
Paul also said Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.
This is why trying to take verses in one letter to a church don't work well when trying to apply them to a different book.
So instead of going to Colossians, or romans or Thessalonians for context for what Paul meant to the church in Corinth, its better to look around what you are looking at for the answer, which in this case Paul provides in the verses DIRECTLY after what he stated.
I find it highly suspect that neither parts use any sources from the early church influencers to get a semblance of how they practiced this tradition. Your videos appeal to other external sources, which includes patristics, but not this one. Why not?
The priest wearing a turbin doesn't conflict with the operation of the assembly outside of the temple. The priest also doesn't wear his clothing outside of the temple as well, so you wouldn't find the priest in the assembly dressed in his priestly garments. Christ also said that the priests work at the temple during the Sabbath but remain guiltless. Why? Because that's what God commanded them to do. His word sets them apart in this particular area.
Paul wasn't writing to people's personal convictions, but to a church that practiced covering and uncovering worldwide. While patristics gives evidence of this, it was nowhere in your 2 videos. Suspicious.
I was just reading this passage the other day and felt like the Spirit was showing me a very similar thing. However, I almost wonder if He brings up the angels because of the fallen angels… thoughts?
Amanda, I was thinking the same thing!
i think the same so i wear it.
Would you encourage a female believer to dishonor their husband?
Would you encourage a male believer to dishonor Christ?
That's what it's about. God has given Jesus the name that is above all names. Christ commanded us to pray in his powerful name. So, why would Paul speak of dishonor and shame to the name of Christ or to the man who represents God's glory of this was just left up to people's shoddy opinions? The angels in the presence of God cover themselves, Isaiah 6. Likewise the woman who is the glory of man covers herself in the presence of the glory of God during prayer and prophecy.
Who cares about nephilim? Peter said they're under punishment and locked away until judgement. Christ has defeated the power of darkness.
It's about creation order, a culture of honor and shame, and the world and many in the church hate this passage.
The glory of man is shaming the man, and the glory of God is shaming Christ.
I think 119 ministries are great and learned alot..but this subject in my opinion is off..the scripture mentions..when praying.. means..coming before God, has nothing to do with the husband being the authority figure...2 different things..
For some reason I am unable to find the “Authority In Marriage” teaching anywhere on your channel or on your website. I’m not certain what I’m doing wrong but could you provide a link for me? Thank you 🙏🏻
I'm assuming you mean submission in marriage? If that's the case, we should mutually Submit to each other, and additionally, husbands are to submit to Christ and wives are to submit to husbands.
לא תענה ברעך עד שקר
If you Listen to The Scriptures and HEAR would you then find what they falsify and learn to Do Better than what Liars Will Ever KNOW or DO and Teach ?!
When they do not adhere to The Saviours Instructions nor Commands what are they ?!
Did they not Hear th3Prophets Nor Saints concerning Take heed that ye be not deceived nor Be thou Not Deceived By Anything ?!
Blessed are they whom Hear and Do the WORD of יהוה אלהים
@@poophandle Eph 5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.
Eph 5:23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.
Eph 5:24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
You say that an apostolic tradition is not binding while a commandment is. However the use of the word "tradition" in 2 Thessalonians clearly makes them to be binding too: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.(2:15) and "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from any brother who leads an undisciplined life that is not in keeping with the tradition you received from us. (3:6). So, we violate scripture if we fail to follow the traditions that the Apostles taught. So, if a married woman doesn't wear a head covering (or if a man does), she (or he) needs to be admonished to do so and if she (or he) still refuses, we have to put her (or him) out of the church. I don't mean to sound harsh, but this is clearly what the scripture teaches.
Simply put, If it is not commanded in the Torah, it's a man-made tradition. I see absolutely nothing wrong with wearing one though. I would just caution anyone against saying that it is commanded. Just my understanding on this topic.
Everyone’s understanding is different that’s why it is falsehood. The Truth is objective.
Jesus commanded baptism in the name of the Father, son, and spirit. That's not in the Torah. Are you saying the Messiah commanded a man-made tradition?
Be careful. That's a slippery slope.
I just want to share my view of this thing...
In my view Paul said that a woman should wear a veil to cover her face, because she is the face of her husband... This doesnt mean headcovering, but "from head hanging down" (hope my english is ok). Paul also said its the same as the "veil in the temple", and Moses "covered his face" as he was on mount sinai. But because the veil in the temple is done away, men shall not cover their faces because they are the face of Messiah, but women should cover their face for they are the face of their husband...
We also see in some verses of the Tanak, that the Wives of some prophets are described with some words like "how beatiful you are behind your veil" and so on...
The covering of the head (but not of the face) is allowed for any man, even to pray with a modern prayer shawl... But as a man we shouldnt cover our face like Moses did... because the veil of temple, symbolizing our sin, is done away with the sinoffering of the messiah King.
This is my conclusion after research. I hope it helps a bit. Shalum.
Why do some say these passages refer only to married people?
Now I’m sure some will reply saying the glory of the woman (aka the long hair) was only meant for the husband to see. This belief is not because of some scripture that details this since it does not exist. It is mainly due to bias and misunderstanding of the word “woman” to mean wife. The same can be said for the word “man” to falsely mean husband. Nowhere does it say that the woman’s glory was only meant for the husband to see, this idea is completely made up.
As noted earlier the words “husband,” “wife,” “marriage” or anything similar are not found in the King James Bible but veil promoters will claim that that is what they are referring to and will use their modern versions to prove that. This is a classic case of reading more into what the Scriptures are actually stating. But the way it is structured gives the strong impression that it is referring GENERALLY to ALL men and women NOT just married couples. Some people have stated that the words “man” and “woman” are interchangeable for “husband” and “wife” but if we read the context of the passages, we can see that this cannot be the case and the likely reasons why the translators thought best to translate it this way. For example, verses 8 and 9 delve into the order of creation, which obviously includes everyone whether they are married or not.
“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.”
Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women.
“EVERY man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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.”
If you try to replace the word woman with wife or man with husband, you will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts. You will also have to deal with the logical implications of this idea in that all single men CAN wear a covering, or all the single women can be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure many veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
Some have mentioned in CZcams comments about “submission” for example: “The clearest explanation, Paul’s is referring to a natural cover and a material covering to symbolize her submission to her husband.” Even though there is no mention of the word “submission” or “husband” or “symbol” in this passage (KJV) yet because of the misinterpretation of the word “man” or “woman” they have construed the idea that this passage refers to husbands and wives. But like I mentioned before it would not make sense.
Lastly, how can one navigate these passages correctly if one were to claim that the words they are reading do not mean what they state? How can one tell when they read the word "man" they really mean "a male person" and not “husband” and the same thing goes for the words: woman and wife? If one were to claim that they were referring to married couples, then how one can expect anyone to believe what they read? The logical thing to do is to understand what they mean by the entire context of the verses and in this case, they are referring to ALL men and women. (Credit to commenter FA)
@@JohnYoder-vi1gj I agree... Nowwhere in the tanach its just for married women... thats true... its much more written that many women like Rivka (or Rebecca) wear a veil... Normally its their understandning of beeing modest... its not directly commanded in that case, but its said "be modest in the eyes of HaShem"... and for that its a normal thing... Sadly traditional jews (like talmudists) wear the veil only on marriage... a real modest woman can you also call a niqabi... thats the best way of beeing mdest... but in my opinion its enough to just cover anything of the body except of hands and face... but the more the better...
Talking away a literal scripture. It said “symbol of authority” and you literally said, not a “symbol of authority”
New Testament is not scripture.
@@serdlc64 ...This Jew KNOWS it is...Mazel Tov B'Ha Yom Din, because you're going to NEED it...
Thanks 🙏 ❤
@@serdlc64 The Apostle Peter would disagree with you: 2Peter 3:15-16 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES, to their own destruction. Peter confirms Paul's writings are indeed scripture.
@@StraitwayLife I can understand your point but when Peter wrote that, the new testament didn't exist. In light of this, Paul was speaking of Scripture in his own style and that if you're ignorant of Scripture, he is hard to understand.
This is a big problem for many people who believe that they are true believers. They think they know what Paul is saying but they don't and get it twisted to their own destruction. Matthew 7:21-23.
shalom brother i am still a little confused about men wearing a covering, i recently bought a tallit and wanted to cover myself with it when praying in private but i remembered the verse about head covering so is it bad for me to cover my head as a male when praying in private
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 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 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 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 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. 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 a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? 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. Again, 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 exclusive 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 give a pleasant appearance 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.
119 ministries never says that they think they've got it all right and they are always willing and ready to listen and take your comments in a respectful manner. However on the other note, I just listened in on Assembly of yahuah and this leader for an online fellowship went into great detail and great description to validate that women are to wear head coverings during prayer and prophecying and outside of the home
Shalom sister, can you please send me the link to that video you’ve mentioned, thank you and may YAH bless you, shalom
@@JeduYah I'm sorry I never saw your message until a year later. You can go on assembly of Yahuah website and ask them about women wearing head coverings. It's been so long now I honestly don't know how to find it for you. I apologize brother 🌹
@@christinabuch.8890 Shalom my sister, I appreciate you replying back, you could've easily said "it's been a year so it's probably too late and I don't need to reply" but you didn't and I appreciate that May YAH bless you and I actually checked the Assembly of Yahuah so I think I can access the video when I want to, thank you tho Achoti, YAH bless
@@JeduYah you're very welcome brother ☺️ I honestly didn't know how to check comments until just recently! I also am glad to receive your message. I know we don't have to ever respond back but YAH would like us to be courteous I think. By the way, it would be great to have you join us on assembly of Yahuah for live sound doctrine fellowships and the life q&a on Shabbat eve.
@@christinabuch.8890 thank you so much for the invite Sis, YAH willing I'll join next Shabbat, Shalom
Num.5 "uncovered" means to let down or loose her (long) hair. Not remove a veil.
Also, Dr. Heiser connected this passage to Hippocratic philosophy. Hippocrates thought that Hair was a sexual organ, and his philosophies seemed to be very popular in Achaea. Therefore, hair ought to be covered in public prayer to show the modesty of the Church to the pagan Corinthians. Also, men and women who would want to become sterile, thereby being able to ‘freely’ have sex, would take on the hair style of the other gender, so to show modesty the right hair styles should be kept under Hippocratic philosophy.
quite a stretch interpretation here, specially because both meanings work well together, but removing the obvious and clear meaning of that verse is absurdly convenient for modern sensibilities... women should use a veil like a decent woman
At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we?
“Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much.
-excerpt Luke 7
Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone...
-excerpt John 12
@@user-iz8np3vv4i Amen.
women should use a veil like a decent woman??? Where is that in the bible. I think the major issue is that some have made a distinction between the words "covering" and "long hair" when it seems like they are both the same. So if a woman is to cover her head and long hair is the covering according to 1st Cor 11:15 then isn't it logical to understand that Paul is saying that the woman is to cover her head in long hair?
The counterargument to that of course is the fact it states that a woman is to cover her head while praying and prophesying and that men are to do the opposite. So there is a false "appearance" that such things were to be done only under two conditions. But that is not what we read. It doesn't say the word "only" and when we read further it says another reason men shouldn't cover their heads is because he is the "image and glory of God" so there goes the two-conditional argument. One assumes that there are two conditions when one can easily argue that Paul was giving just two examples. In that it would look off if a woman doing something holy LIKE praying and prophesying while having such a short haircut and the same can be said for the man with long hair. Logic also dictates that if a woman must wear a cloth covering based on two conditions then doesn't that imply that she CAN be without it if she were to do something else like say cast out demons, talk in tongues, or interpret tongues etc. This head covering doctrine fails once one put things into logical perspective.
AMEN
Also, in the Greek it says her hair is given to her instead of a covering. This is very physical and is not symbolic at all. Means do it. Teach it. Her glory is at stake.
Not sure what you mean. A women's long hair
is the covering. There is no fabric covering
needed.
People are trying to hard to go beyond God’s Word. When we have to create our own explanation, it dilutes the Word when the information is already there. If you read the scripture, you will see that before Paul goes into detail about having covering, he clearly states who that covering is. For Jesus, His covering is God. For man, his covering is Jesus. For woman, her covering is man. The woman must have a covering, if she is to pray and prophesy (which is man). For man, he is to not place a covering over himself because Jesus is his covering. The hair example is simply that, an example. Most women value long hair, so Paul compares the woman not having the covering of a man to having her hair shaved off. He uses the same example for man because it is very unusual to see a man with hair like a woman. This is why Paul said for a man to have hair like a woman is a shame. In current times, people have accepted everything and you see more men with long hair. As a man, I can’t place an authority over me because Jesus is my Authority, my Head. As a woman, it is a disgrace to not have a man in authority over you as your head. A man covering his head is simply blotting out Jesus as his Head. A woman going into prayer and prophecy without placing a covering on her head is a disgrace. Please share your thoughts.
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 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 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 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 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. 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 a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? 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. Again, 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 exclusive 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 give a pleasant appearance 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 Powerful teaching. Long Hair is def the covering there is no other alternative.
Well said. Thank you.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Best explanation and what is also best is that it doesn't deviate from the Scripture. I will be using this knowledge for future reference TY
@@GodsWordisTruth-zg1jj Amen
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 have to 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.
You seem to be everywhere trying to push the idea that men should also wear a head covering.
But you seem to be very confused about this matter. For example, you use the idea that some women would wear “…a hair tie that contains the Ten Commandments in order to obey Deut. 6:8-9.” Um that was not meant to be taken literally otherwise would you also believe that people are to bind God’s words in their heart to mean that one should perform open heart surgery? No right?
Also, you are mistaken to believe that Paul described covering all of the hair. Which verse are you taking this from or better yet what Bible version are you reading from? If Paul said anything he said cover the head NOT the hair. The covering Paul was referring to was long hair as so noted in 1 Cor 11:15.
Then you somehow combine this with the “armor of God” but the armor of God is not a man made object it is a spiritual armor, so you cannot combine a head covering with that passage. I don’t understand why would you be mixing these things together with no evidence?
Lastly you stated that If the head of woman is the man, then why isn't the man's head covered?
But seem to forget that the head of the woman is man and that the head of the man is Christ. The Bible is quite explicit in this that it would be very hard or very biased to overlook it. I hope God helps you because you seem to be very lost in this. I will be praying.
This subject matter could be understood more if Paul was kept in context....all the way to verse 16 where he says Yahs people have no such custom of headcoverings.
The women with the shorn heads was proof that they had been engaged in temple prostitution to the false gods and thereby had dishonored their husband's.
Also a double meaning that men should not cover their heads, like some do with prayer shawls. That equally brought dishonor to Christ.
Racca. Head coverings. Call no one your father except your Father in heaven, etc
Uhm, what ?? That was rather a stretch to equate men with long hair are somehow homosexuals. I have had long hair my entire life and I am not a homosexual. I had a feeling from the onset of the video that was where you were going to go with that. How do you reconcile this teaching that long hair equated to homosexuality with Numbers 6:5 ?? Are Nazarites then to be considered homosexuals since they are commanded to let their hair grow long ?? NASB: "All the days of his vow of consecration no razor shall pass over his head. He shall be holy until the days are fulfilled which he lives as a Nazirite for the Lord; he shall let the locks of hair on his head grow long".
Rav Sha'ul in his teaching is bringing up societal norms of his day, and let us also not forget that Rav Sha'ul was a Pharisee to begin with, and may still be preaching the traditions of the Pharisees.
look up false apostle paul
I thought that weird as well. I think it more cultural, since long hair is not really defined. Nowadays hairdressers say everything that is over shoulder is long, but some say if it is longer than a military hair cut it is long. Some things are just cultural, like what are male/female clothes as well.
@@FabienneSP Did you see part 2 ?? Apparently this prohibition on long hair does not include the Nazarites. How convenient. Now I wonder if they understand the Nazarite vow and what it entails.
@@thabilldozer Yes, I have. the information about the Nazarene vow is correct.
On a obelisk made by the asyrians Isrealite women and their daughters are depicted wearing very long head coverings that go down to just a couple inches above the hem of their skirt.
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her...
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
@user-iz8np3vv4i Look at that passage in Greek. The words translated as covering are different. One translates as covering the other as a veil or wrap around. Her hair is a veil or wrap around given to her.
@@inertproductionsalternate9114
what I wrote:
because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her
-YLT translation
NASB translation:
but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering.
what you wrote:
Her hair is a veil or wrap around given to her.
We're saying the same thing, are we not?
@@user-iz8np3vv4i I see no problem here. If the translation is wrap around and and the other translation is to cover then long hair has the ability to do BOTH then there is no conflict.
Women don’t pray or prophesy in church anymore.
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...
Can you provide evidence from 1st Corinthians 11:1-16 that says those who practice this ordinance are in bondage and relying on the flesh?
@@marriage4life893 1 cor 11:15 says that woman's HAIR is her covering. it says nothing about adding any additional clothes, putting on a scarf or anything of this sort. so you ADD to the Word of God and teach against what the Bible says.
secondly, 1 pet 3;3-4 says "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." - we read here that it is not the EXTERNAL things which we should adorn ourselves but the things of the HEART. because God looks at the HEART. rom 8;5 -6 says "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." so when you live according to the flesh you are carnally minded and that is sin and death.
@@aikozoe6598 Well said and well done. How can one disagree to this scripture? God bless.
I am cautiously optimistic that you've changed your stance on head coverings and that's why your doing a new teaching. 🙏
What was their original stance? I completed a 5-part series on the subject just last week . If 119 ministries comes out against the head-covering rules and guidelines (and examples found in Torah), I am open to a public debate on the matter. Poor bible translations of 1 Corinthians 11:16 ( like the KJV ) have contributed to a lot of confusion on this subject.
@@StraitwayLife What translation do you recommend over the KJV?
I could be wrong but I have looked and looked in the Torah and I can’t find anything that commands us to cover heads
@@jasont5427 maybe the Cepher. No translation is perfect, but I like that one. KJv even has the word “easter .”😉 makes a flag go up to me. The catholics have tampered with Paul . Yah is not a GOD of confusion, but the NT sure is confusing. I’m sure the allowed it for a reason. Maybe to make us dig deeper to find the truth.... as He DID say whoever adds or takes away.... cuz He knew they would and they are going to get plagues and not be a part of the Tree of Life. The Cepher has quite a few of the removed books, although people say they are not true 🤷♀️ I don’t know, pretty interesting . Enoch and Jasher are mentioned in the Bible, just like the Annals of “such and such kings,” that aren’t in the Bible.
As far as head-coverings, what if a woman isn’t married ? What then. I just think that was Paul’s idea or added in.🤷♀️
I found this teaching confusing...
Did you seriously skip over the fact that the apocrypha explains that angels came down and mates with human women because they were attractive? And that the reason was bc their hair? Come on 119….That’s dishonest.
Hahahaha apocrypha no one came here to play with crayons and coke lol 😂
@@GoldenQ. does that mean you discount the prophet Enoch? Doubt he wrote it?
If you could biblically connect sons of GOD to Angels and not Israelites then you may have something.
@@jimharmon2300 were there Israelites in the days of Noah? When scriptures refer to “sins of God” it is referring to angels.
@@TAHbKA1980
Ok , HIS people whether Hebrew , Israelites or Jew .
All people are HIS if they wish to serve HIM or not .
All gold and silver, all is HIS .
HE created all and all is HIS .
Label or names of HIS sons changes names throughout scripture.
Exodus 4:22
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel [is] my son, [even] my firstborn:
Exodus 4:23
And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, [even] thy firstborn.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Too bad you are not touching the subject of unmarried woman. As an unmarried woman myself I often wonder. I understand that it is often spoken about being the more desireable path for women to get married, but not all women are called into or are able to find godly men to marry. Nevertheless we also wonder about those kind of things.
Bible doesn’t talk about head covering for married women only. Bible says just women.
@@usa2342 mostly it is taught that the covering signifies she is under the headship of her husband. So as the sister stated above, how does that apply to single women. Personally I am starting to agree with old time Pentecostal teaching of a woman not letting her hair hang loose and growing it long. If you watch old cowboy movies, the unmarried women had long loose hair and the married women wore their hair up. To some men, long, loose hair can be attractive in a wrong way. We all have to pray for wisdom and not sin against our conscience in these matters. 😊
I would watch the older teaching from them on this matter it’s way better
You'd have to apply your logic to single men as well. Does a man only bring disgrace and shame to Christ as his head only if he's married? Are you part of creation order only if you're married?
Christ is the head of man, not just married men. Likewise, man is the head of woman, single or married. Moreover, are you not the glory of man unless you're a married woman? Likewise, are single men excluded as being the glory of God because they aren't married?
Marital status doesn't matter. We represent God's creation order to the world regardless. 😊
I do not agree whatsoever after leaning on your videos recently, this is the only one that I found to be in error
. No where in the Scriptures does it say the man is to respect the woman. In the example you use in Deuteronomy, where they took a woman and shaved her head she had no spiritual authority over her whatsoever because it wasn’t Yahweh You keep using the word church, but the Greek says assembly. Paul said woman does not speak in the assembly. This is a very long, winded apology for head coverings. Eve was not in the garden when Adam received instructions on eating from the tree and Yahweh said to Moses, speak to the sons of Israel. Look at the Greek four verse 15 in first Corinthians 11. Her hair is given to her instead of a covering. you ladies out there don’t like them Dead ends you better start covering because of the angels. If we have different roles we are not the same woman should humble themselves and you shouldn’t teach falsehood.
you wrote:
No where in the Scriptures does it say the man is to respect the woman.
I did a short essay on Deborah the judge. In the scriptures,
if a man refused to accept a judge's verdict, the punishment
was execution.
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel went up to her for judgment.
-excerpt Judges 4