Love the way you are just so conversational. It is like a conversion with a friend who has spent many hours studying the bible and who share the information is a very simple way - plainly that can easily be understood. You have a gift. Thanks for all the work you folks do.
@@princeofpeace794 angels are covered, look at the ark of the covenant. They are protectors. Women with uncut hair protect their house and the angels understand that cuz they understand coverings!!
I have to agree with a couple of commentators here in that the main speaker is spouting all sorts of things with NO PROOF whatsoever. He clearly is giving his opinion because there is NO EVIDENCE that Paul was saying that due to the angels women ought to wear something on their heads otherwise it will be a source of trouble or discouragement for them. (minute 3:50) I know he did not outright say the words (women ought to wear some kind of covering because...) but it is clearly implied. He continues this ridiculous idea in min 6:05 saying that Paul is saying "...why would you trouble them (the angels)? Why would you break their heart in acting and rebellion against god...?" What? Can the lack of a covering somehow magically influence an angel? He then tries to make the hearer feel guilty because if we call ourselves the "church" then we shouldn't be doing rebellious things and "incite" angels. YES he said INCITE! So by doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and by that I mean not wearing some kind of covering you (women) can incite angels! Oh and that we shouldn't cause the angels trouble. WHAT?! Where is this guy getting this information from? This is absolute hogwash! If you are going to theorize say it and not make it seem like this is absolute truth. This is how false doctrine starts and then a complete misunderstanding of what 1 Corinthians is trying to convey. Can you imagine what the woman might be thinking sitting next to him if she accepts this junk. "Oh poor angels I don't want to cause them trouble let me go find a hat or something" This is shocking, shameful and this man ought to repent quickly.
I don't think you are using context here. It is not cultural but a truth of respecting headship, which is from the beginning with creation (11:7-9). You contradicted yourself. The headcoverings are in the context of the gathering of the church. In the first chapter (1:2), this letter to the Corinthian church was for all believers and was to be circulated among the other churches therefore it was not limited to Corinth. If it were cultural, then Paul, the Holy Spirit do not distinguish between important doctrines, such as headship, Lord's supper, gatherings of the church, the angels who are looking in amazement that fallen mankind can be redeemed and worship. It says earlier in the chapter that headship was from the beginning with creation and did not distinguish between what was for every believer and only for the church at Corinth. The headcovering is to cover a woman's glory, which is her hair so she can give glory to the man, who in turn remains uncovered to give glory to Jesus Christ. This is not demeaning to the women but it has become that way because preachers teach it to be cultural in Corinth, which is demeaning to the women. I think you need more study on this subjects. Unfortunately, seminaries and often commentaries do not explain this passage from Scripture in i's context for fear from pressure during the feminist movement. Over the years, they have adjusted their Biblical understanding of the marvellous passage that honours the Lord, demonstrates how we can show to the angels our humble spirit during the gathering of the Lord's people with these simple symbols.
Thank you for deeper understanding of this text. This text is not simply A costume of the time. Paul’s prescriptive women covering head appoints back to the creation of authority God instituted.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Very funny what a loon. Covering the head with a man-made earthly veil is of heavenly concern. LOL When God ALREADY gave woman long hair as the covering. 🤣🤣
I always thought that Paul was referring to the Genesis and the fact that some angels lusted over the beautiful women. Transforming so that they could have relations with them, creating offspring. Giants, which were not after their own kind as God had said. Genesis 6:1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal ; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. 5 The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created-and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground-for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
what about the angels ? though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those ⌈also⌉ do who die and perish. 5. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. 6. But you were ⌈formerly⌉ spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. 7. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling. 8. And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. 9. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men, ⌈⌈and⌉⌉ from the holy Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; ⌈they shall be evil spirits on earth, and⌉ evil spirits shall they be called. [10. As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.] 11. And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, ⌈but nevertheless hunger⌉ and thirst, and cause offences. And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded ⌈from them⌉.
I agree, I thought the head covering for woman, in regards to Angels, was for protection for Angels so as it would help them not lust for woman or as protection for woman from Fallen Angels would might lust for woman. Why does it seem that there can not be one consensus for so many questions? In one way it helps my Faith that I will be saved so we, the Elect, can be taught the TRUTH during the 1000 years of peace..
The culture of Head coverings changed during the feminist movement in the early 1900s. Ask your grandma and she would say all women wear hats back in her day.
Thank you for talking about this. I felt called to cover my head about two years ago and feel so much more peaceful, calm, and content when I cover my head/ hair. This was not a cultural thing in Corinath. There's is NO historical accuracy to what you guys just said about uncovered women in Corinath. This is a lie that has created into the church in only the last 100 years. Headcovering was actually counter cultural. Jewish and Corinathian men covered during prayer and worship, and Corinathian and Jewish women uncovered. 1 Cor 11 is pretty clear that a woman should cover or veil her head in public worship. The word for covering in 1 Corthians 11:4, 5,6,7, 13, is the word, katakalýptō, from katá, "down, and kalýptō, "to cover"-cover down, to make appropriate (complete), i.e. to wear a veil. It is the root word used for the veil that separated the Holy of holies from the priests. But only in vrs 15, where Paul is giving an example from nature is a different word used, "but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering." This is different word from the others for "cover"= "peribolaion," that which is tossed around or a mantel that can be thrown around the shoulders and body (As in when a women tosses or throws her hair around). Cover in the first few verses of 1 Cor 11, should really be translated veil as that is the proper Greek word used. Katakalýptō was NEVER used in Greek for hair. This is where we get the English saying, "Let your hair down." Becuase during the "sexual revolution" women let their hair down out of their buns, uncovered their hair and shook it back and forth. Which is very alluring to man. If hair if the covering as some people say, can men be bald or take their hair off and on? No obviously not. This is why men take their hats off in church or at baseball games, etc. Also, since woman's hair is her glory, it should be covered because we are not to show our glory when we come into the presence of the LORD. Only the LORD'S glory should be on display. Not woman's. Plus the veil or covering is it be a symbol of us coming under God's authority to the angels. And since all women have hair, that is not a symbol. We put a covering or veil on our head as a symbol that we are coming under authority to remind the fallen, and not fallen angles that we are in obedient to God's order. (As Satan rebelled because he wanted more authority). Also it's also because angels are in church services and they can't see our hearts, but they can see a veil. Angels partake in the gathering of the saints and want to look intently into our worship time. (1 Tim 5:21, 1 peter 1:12, Rev 2:1, 2:8, 2:12, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 3:14) Up until only the last two generations woman covered in Church. All of our grandmothers would have covered in church. This is why the Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, the orthodox churches, a lot of African congratations, and Messiniac Beleivers, etc still cover their hair. Here's some verses in the OT about head covering. Hope these help. Isaiah 47:1-2. Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones and grind flour, "put off your veil", strip off your robe, uncover your legs, pass through the rivers. (So as we can see, even virgins were to keep their heads covered and save their hair for their husbands. Otherwise it is like they are showing all their nakedness). Numbers 5:18. Then the priest shall stand the woman before the LORD, "uncover the woman’s head," and put the offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse. Also Genesis 20:16 says in the Hebrew Then to Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; indeed this is "a covering for her eyes" (to put back on her wedding covering) you before all who are with you and before everybody.” Thus she was rebuked. From what I understand In Genesis 24:65. Rebekah covers herself because the bridal price has already been paid. 2 vrs later we see Isaac take Rebekah bright away into his tent. There was no wedding ceremony. Her covering herself was an outward show of her marriage to Isaac. Since they were married he was allowed to take her right away into his tent and "uncover" her.
With all due respect this doctrine is not quite true. 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 and assumes that such a person already has long hair and is wrong for not doing so. 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 believe 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 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 “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 not to 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 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 have 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 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.
Did this guy have a problem when Jesus quoted singular Bible versus when tempted by Satan? Jesus only used memorized singular Old Testament versus from Deuteronomy.
@@michaelsage4599 The purpose of memorizing veses before and after is to help alleviate misuse of any given verse totally out of context. I'm not worried about the almighty misusing verses out of context.
It's not a cultural reference, but a reference to the angelic hierarchies, like Jude appeals to the humility of Michael when rebuking Satan to rebuke his adversaries.
I like how his explanation of angles and head coverings makes absolutley no sense. Disrupting the angles...??? Sometimes its okay to swallow your pride and simply say "I don't know".
This guy can’t even read scripture without trying to apply it. He has a history of dancing around scriptures on many topics and trying to sound intelligent with his many words to explain away scripture (giving his opinion). With many words sin is not absent. - Provers 10:19
This is inappropriate teaching of Scripture. There's not enough info in the verse to give a rock solid answer. "Because of the angels" could mean all kinds of things. I would say, "I don't know what that means, it doesn't give enough info to be certain." But if you want to share some theories that would be fine, as long as it's not taught as fact. Teaching Scripture 101: Don't teach what's not there. Never teach assumptions or theories as facts. It's OK to say you don't know what something means.
Agreed. This guy and the people nodding in agreement are dangerous. Christians should know better than to preach things they cannot prove. Not a good example of someone doing their homework.
Everything he said is in the Bible he didn’t make anything up, he studied the question and got a good answer that makes sense, the Bible don’t go into detail about a lot of things that’s why we have to study , if u thirst for meaning of scripture you’ll study for an answer
Women arnt supposed to cut or shorn their hair. Not that hard. Our hair is out glory and protects the family. Angels are covered so they understand coverings
He said context is important, but then didn’t use the context around the verse to explain it. Paul’s reasoning is not from the customs and cultures of that day, but of creation in Genesis. Paul does say decide for yourself v13. As for the angels it is only going to be assumption using scripture- eg you could say the angels are watching and they are under authority, just as the women is under the authority of their individual husbands and their husbands (&them) under the authority of Christ, based on order of creation and reason for creation given in Genesis. Etc This man has made reasonable inferences of what the verse may mean - taken slightly out of its context. I haven’t yet come across any one who has explained this section of scripture well. It is a difficult part of scripture to tackle. Well done for trying when most don’t.
Let there be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse [obscene or vulgar] joking, because such things are not appropriate [for believers]; but instead speak of your thankfulness [to God]. Ephesians 5:4 AMP
A woman choses to submit or choses to rebel. That is the power she has to help/ empower her husband through submission. Thus she should use the power positively as holy Angels carry petitions of women who cover their hair faster. Whereas evil angels see uncovered hair as spiritual flirting and lust or even spiritually marry or try to bond to such women. Since they think a rebellious woman is of their kind and they have the astral right to be married to such women. Uncovered hair in women attracts negativity but covered hair attracts favour, blessings and makes you easily heard by holy angels and facilitates God's work through such women.
Can you provide any Scripture to support what you're saying about the prayers of uncovered women being carried slower by the goof angels due to spiritual warfare with the evil ones?
@@wendya5887 But the question is "not submitting to what?" What exactly would a woman be doing that would allegedly "open her up to attacks" And where does it say that an attack would or could happen if a woman does not submit to whatever the thing she is not submitting to? If that is what they are saying then they would need to prove with evidence otherwise they are making up an imaginary situation.
The more appropriate response in the more logical conclusion is this is a reference to Genesis 6. The beauty of human women has a profound effect even on angels. The book of Job clearly demonstrates that the sons of God are indeed angels referenced in Genesis 6. In today's modernized feminized society I don't expect this to get much traction. Very disappointed with the interpretation I understand it may be unpopular but you have to lead with the most likely point of reference
"because of the angels" -- the first thing you have to do is see if Paul refers to the angels earlier in the letter. It turns out Paul mentions them in chapter 6:3 "Do you not know that we will judge angels? Why not ORDINARY matters!" In 1 Cor 11:10 then, Paul is saying that since a woman has two heads (her husband and Christ), like men she also should uncover her head (as it represents shame for sin), but if she has an unbelieving Jewish husband, if she uncovers her head, he could divorce her. She has to consider both of her heads. "a symbol of" is not in the Greek. The text says that she should have the authority over her own head...to make her own decision. Paul is not forcing her to do something that results in her unbelieving husband divorcing her.
I have been bothered by this chapter a lot and I just looked up the original Greek and you are right even the kjv can be read this way it makes sense for me now. Thanks so much 😀❤️
She does not have two heads. She has the husband, and the husband's head is Christ, whose head is God the Father. This is the umbrella of submission and protection and is the ideal.
A woman choses to submit or choses to rebel. That is the power she has to help/ empower her husband through submission. Thus she should use the power positively as holy Angels carry petitions of women who cover their hair faster. Whereas evil angels see uncovered hair as spiritual flirting and lust or even spiritually marry or try to bond to such women. Since they think a A woman choses to submit or choses to rebel. That is the power she has to help/ empower her husband through submission. Thus she should use the power positively as holy Angels carry petitions of women who cover their hair faster. Whereas evil angels see uncovered hair as spiritual flirting and lust or even spiritually marry or try to bond to the women. Since they think a rebellious woman is of their kind and their astral right to be married to such women.
Because of the angels should be part of the following sentence. So verse 11 becomes Nevertheless, because of the angels, neither woman without man nor man without woman. In 1 Cor 11:2-16 Paul is giving us his authoritative interpretation of Genesis 1 "image of God" and Genesis 2 the creation of woman out of man. The image of God entails the 2 stage creation of Adam, as a man and then woman out of him. This is what Paul is referring to with "man is the ..glory of God" and "woman is the glory of man". Together they complete Adam as the image of God. Now, the reference to angels is from Psalm 8 which is a creation psalm outlining the order of creation and all reality. The order throughout all reality from top to bottom is an hierarchical order in Psalm 8. Paul is using the Psalm 8 hierarchical order of reality as a grid when he discusses Gen 1 and 2. His argument and conclusion is that man is the head of woman. However, he knows that Psalm 8 only mentions mankind. It does not delineate mankind into man and woman as Gen 2 does. So, verse 11 nevertheless, because of the angels, ie because in psalm 8, netther woman without man nor man without woman. So it is 😢 Paul saying he recognises Psalm 8 does not mention man andcwoman. The next verse, verse 12, then explains why it is okay for Psalm 8 to just mention mankind. Verse 12 for, in the Lord, just as woman out of man, so also man through woman. Woman out of man is a repetition of what Paul said earlier from Gen 2. In the Lord, is telling us that Christ is the creator of man and woman as detailed in Gen 2. Just as Christ is the creator of the fact that every man is born from a woman. The two things together tells us that Christ had made us, man and woman, to be in this together, albeit with different tasks. Just as verse 11 has said that the psalmist expresses us being together as mankind. Now, how do we know that "in the Lord" refers to Christ as our creator. We know it because back in chapter 8:6 of 1 corinthians it told us that "one Lord, Jesus Christ through whom are all things...". That this is what "in the Lord" is referring to is confirmed by the last part of 1 cor 11:12c "and all things out of God (presumably God the Father)" which is the same as what was said about God the Father in 1 cor 8:6 "one God the Father out of whom all things". So 1 cor 11 including the issue of covering or not covering one head and including verse 3 about headship of woman and man and Christ, is all about examining and applying 1 Cor 8:6 regarding the eternal relationship of God the Father to Christ Jesus the Lord. So, 1 cor 11:3 sums up the application of the hierarchical order of reality grid of Psalm 8 to man and woman, and to Christ and man, and to God the Father and Christ thd Lord. All 3 are hierarchical relationships. All 3 image the other just like Gen 2 shows us how the building of woman out of man makes Adam the image of God.
I have to agree with a couple of commentators here (Michael Sage & StormRider) in that the main speaker is spouting all sorts of things with NO PROOF whatsoever. He clearly is giving his opinion because there is NO EVIDENCE that Paul was saying that due to the angels women ought to wear something on their heads otherwise it will be a source of trouble or discouragement for them. (minute 3:50) I know he did not outright say the words (women ought to wear some kind of covering because...) but it is clearly implied. He continues this ridiculous idea in min 6:05 saying that Paul is saying (to the women why? because the topic is about the phrase "because of the angels" which is in reference to women) "...why would you trouble them why would you break their heart in acting and rebellion against god..." What? Can the lack of a covering somehow magically influence an angel? He then tries to make the hearer feel guilty because if we call ourselves "church" we shouldn't be doing rebellious things and "incite" angels. YES he said INCITE! So by doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and by that I mean not wearing some kind of covering you (women) can incite angels. Oh and that we shouldn't cause them (angels) trouble. WHAT?! Where is this guy getting this information from? This is absolute hogwash! I agree with StormRider if you are going to theorize say it and not make it seem like this is absolute truth. This is how false doctrine starts and then a complete misunderstanding of what 1 Corinthians is trying to convey. Can you imagine what the woman might be thinking next to him if she accepts this junk. "Oh poor angels I don't want to cause them trouble let me go find a hat or something" This is shocking, shameful and this man ought to repent quickly.
True but if he refers to creation then he could not be talking about a manufactured head covering. It has to be natural and since long hair is the covering according to verse 15 then it stands to reason that it must be regarding hair.
This is one of the worst interpretation I have heard. Incite angels....🙄...give me a break. What nonsense. Can someone please delete this whole video before someone takes them seriously>
Here is the clear and definitive explanation you've been waiting for. 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.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. * 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?" Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be “uncovered” should mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL should pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Why should the lack of a veil make a praying woman not have a “pleasing appearance” (aka look comely)? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is important so please don’t dismiss it. Be honest with yourself do YOU really believe that the average person will look at an unveiled, praying woman and naturally think a VEIL is missing or would make her look unpleasing? Are we to assume that Paul expected the average person to have instilled within them the idea that a foreign object is missing from a woman? I have never seen or heard anyone say something like: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head?” after looking at a long-haired, praying woman. To so do would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. 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. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right that there is an unpleasing appearance. I think I can say with some assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a short-haired woman from behind especially if we are not sure if the person was male or female. It seems like a natural reaction especially when we were young. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation. "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 ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong: whether it be OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (a.k.a. short hair) while praying or OBSERVING a man having long hair. In addition, by using the word “NATURE” one can’t even use the excuse that perhaps they were expecting only Christians to see something different. Clearly, if “nature” teaches us that something looks off then it must include all of mankind as nature teaches all of us both Christian and non-Christian. I would like to also add that these verses are NOT jumping from the discussion of a “veil” in verse 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in verse 14 like some would like to argue because you will note that verse 15 refers again to the woman which FLAT-OUT STATES the “covering” is to mean “long hair.” Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses are referring to hair length. By this, we can understand verse 4 which states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered as I previously mentioned. I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due to the false interpretation that the verse is exclusive to two conditions instead of seeing them as two examples. As mentioned before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. * Did people really view unveiled women as someone shaved? I know this question sounds weird but I’m not trying to be funny, veil promoters have literally stated that Paul (and likely others at the time) viewed unveiled women as though they were shaved based on 1st Corinthians 11:5. Why would anyone think that a woman, who typically has long hair, be equated to being shaved if they did not wear the alleged veil? It doesn’t make sense and when confronted the typical response is that that is just the way it should be accepted. To them, it simply doesn’t matter if it seems illogical. So, let’s follow the logic of verse 5 based on the idea that unveiled women are equated to being shaved. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Looking at this woman would you really think that you are looking at someone who is shaved, just because she is not wearing a veil? Do you really think Christians really looked at unveiled women this way? Doesn’t that seem unrealistic and odd? But if “uncovered” means “short hair” like a typical man’s haircut, then it would make much more sense. It seems more feasible that a woman with short hair (aka uncovered) is likened to being “shaven” than someone who has long hair and without a veil. In other words, it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven bald rather than being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even if she has long hair) is somehow equal (or “likened”) to being shaved as veil promoters claim. I am almost always shocked when people don’t understand how this view is unrealistic and illogical.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter thank you for taking the time to respond in great detail. I appreciate it and don’t disagree with your logic. I should have been clearer as to why this verse is difficult to understand which would be the part pertaining to the angels. I would love to read your explanation of that part of the verse.
@@OpieApproved The part pertaining to angels that is a tough one for sure as most people agree it comes out of nowhere. We can only extrapolate a couple of truths from this. The first is that this verse is listed among the number of reasons why a woman ought to cover (obviously cover in long hair). The other is that angels are quoted as being ministering spirits in other verses so perhaps it means they are watching and testifying what we do. But that is of course debatable but not far fetched either. Though I may not have too much to say on what they mean but I can at least offer a fair amount on what they don’t mean. For example there have been some who have taken this tiny section and expanded to mean a whole lot more and have connected this with Genesis 6 and the non-biblical book called the Book of Enoch. For whatever reason some people want to believe that women should wear a foreign object like a hat or veil to prevent angels from either lusting after women or have physical relations. Some have taken the first few verses of Genesis 6 to mean that the Sons of God were referring to angels who took human wives. (A similar idea is in the Book of Enoch). Then somehow for whatever reason some have assumed that the verse in 1 Cor 11 is in connection to Genesis 6 and that a veil somehow has the power to protect the women from lustful angels. I kid you not…. A lot of people believe this fairy tale. So the question is (despite it already sounding ridiculous) what biblical evidence would prove this to be incorrect. First one should read Genesis 6:1-7. Genesis 6 emphasizes the errors of man not angels. It states in the first verse that MEN began to multiply and that they had fair-looking daughters in verse two, of which were noticed by the sons of God. Given that believers or followers of God are also described as sons we can likely assume that they are referring to those who chose to follow God. Another clue is that they took from these women, WIVES. So let’s paint a picture for a moment if they were angels. To take someone to wife must mean that they LIVED in a matrimonial household. If it were a one-night stand I think it would have said so. Therefore, are we to imagine that certain angels with the powers they possess married human women who then had to plow the field, tend the animals, raise the children, etc? Sounds very unlikely. Verse 3 already shows something of God’s displeasure limiting their time on earth and that his spirit won’t always strive with man it could be because the sons of God should have chosen from their own rank or group as opposed to those who are the daughters of men. But that of course is debatable. Verse 4 is where we read about giants but if we read the rest of the verse it keeps describing these men as those who “BECAME mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Meaning it took time for them to become legends or mighty or renowned. Since we all know that we can use the words to describe someone as renowned or great by using the word “giant” (e.g. “he was a giant among men”) it would seem to fit perfectly with the rest of the words making this same description. God continues to reveal his displeasure in that men are wicked all the time in verse 5 and states he repented making man in verses 6 and 7. So it would seem God was unhappy with MEN when they were choosing their wives and after more men were born from this union. But if there were male angels taking women as wives then shouldn’t they and only the women be punished and not all men? Therefore the logical conclusion is that they are referring to certain men regarded as the sons of God and that the word giants can and does have another meaning. Lastly the idea that the sons of God were angels is contrary to scripture because Hebrews 1 states: For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father " ? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son" ? Meaning he never said that any of the angels were his sons so that kills the theory that the “sons of God” could ever mean angels. Not to mention the fact that Jesus had said that we would be like the angels who neither marry or are given in marriage. Sorry for the length and the little information on what Paul could have been meaning.
@@robertmiller812 I appreciate the insight. Although you brought up another ambiguous part of the scripture in genesis as pertaining to the sons of God.
All churches should be doing what exactly? The passage refers to women maintaining their long and men's short and the reasons why and how it even naturally looks wrong. Nothing else here.
@@robertmiller812 Paul introduces the matter of head coverings with a foundation - AUTHORITY. The whole thing is about authority. God - (the Father) Christ - (the Son) Man - made in the image and likeness of God (is the eimage and glory of God) Woman - taken from - came out of man (is the glory of man) Paul says that the woman should have authority ON HER HEAD. If hair was the 'authority' on her head Paul would have made that abundantly clear - eg, Her hair is her authority" - but he doesn't say that. Her long hair is her glory (doxa) - not her authority (exousia - delegated authority, freedom, privilege- etc) . The covering over her head of hair is her exousia. And this shows in the spiritual realm that she is submitted to God's order of thiings - when she prays or prophesies..
@@ianmcdonald8648 With all due respect Paul is not introducing the matter of head coverings. Also to rearrange the words that the woman ought to “cover her head” to “head coverings” can be viewed as disingenuous. Since head coverings imply a foreign object on the head, whereas the other does not, since long hair has the capacity of covering the head. This foundation you speak of is true but not in regards to a foreign object but to the hair on men’s and women’s heads. Your overfocus on one word “authority” may be the cause that is blinding you from understanding all the other verses that clearly refer to hair. The verse in question in the KJ version states: “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” It says “power” on her head, it doesn’t say a hat or a bonnet or a veil that you seem to see. Although I can agree it does not say explicitly that her hair is her “power” or in your case “authority” (but then I didn’t initiate that argument) but NEITHER does it say that a hat, veil or bonnet is her “power” or “authority.” You are trying to connect something that is not there. But I on the other hand can prove scripturally that they are referring to hair. Also Paul was not saying that a woman's head ought to be covered under two exclusive conditions like praying or prophesying. The evidence shows that Paul was simply offering two examples. That is why we read only the word "praying" in verse 13. Also recall that the man ought not to be covered when praying or prophesying, So, wouldn't the idea of exclusivity also apply to him? But Paul mentions that men ought to be “uncovered” because he is the image and glory of God? So it isn't when he prays and prophesies that his head should be uncovered, his head should always be uncovered. Now if a woman’s head ought to covered in long hair then it is logical to understand that the man's head should NOT be covered in long hair, since men’s hair is supposed to be short (not to be misunderstood as baldness). Therefore to be covered means to be covered in long hair and to be uncovered means to have short hair. The idea that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying doesn't make sense with the surrounding verses. But if they were referring to long hair then the other verses start to make much more sense. A perfect example is verse 13 when Paul asks us to make a judgment. Based on what? Observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil is missing? Are we to assume that Paul expected the average person to have instilled within them the idea that a foreign object is missing from a woman? Why would the average person EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head, by mere observation. 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. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then we can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. I think I can say with some assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a woman with short hair especially if we are looking at their backs to confirm whether the person was male or female. Ergo a NATURAL reaction. Then there is verse that says: “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.” Which only makes sense if a woman “uncovered” means a woman with short hair since it would be closer to someone shaven. But what is the alternative? that they are saying that a woman without a veil or hat EVEN if she has LONG would be likened as someone shaved? That would be odd. Oh it gets better. The next verse says: 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. So (according to those who promote veils or hats) a woman who does not wear a veil or hat should be shorn (same word used to sheer sheep implying leaving a stubble). So her nice long hair must be cut down to the stubble if she doesn’t wear a veil? But if uncovered means to have short hair (like a man) then at least there isn’t a drastic leap to have it cut down to a stubble (aka shorn) or shaved. So should we put aside the facts that “long hair” is written twice the words shorn and shaven also written twice for a total of six times in this passage. Are we supposed to be overfocused on one or two words? Shouldn’t context matter? I think I made my case.
@@robertmiller812 thanks for your reply. "I think I made my case" is your opinion, or understanding of the text. What was common then is not common now in may respects. It is easy for us to weigh up Scritpure accdording to what our experience has been. Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether a woman has short hair or long hair, they are free to have long or short hair. But If I am looking at what Paul says about the length of hair being her glory, then it seems reasonable if we are going to submit ourselves to the instruction of the Word of God, then a woman ought to consider this for herself. The opposite if true for a man - short hair. The use of words is important. God's tho7ughts are known by His words - inspired to be written by the Holy Ghost. If another word is used in a given text, then it is appropriate to inspect that word and the meaning thereof. Paul IS speaking about authority in this passage. In fact MUCH of his writing is based on his apostolic authority - which was given him by the Lord. Jesus said before He ascended - ALL AUTHORITY is given to Me both in Heaven and on earth - GO YOU THEREFORE. So Paul went and taught and preached exactly what the Lord Jesus gave him personally. Authority is important and word usage is important. Paul makes it clear that concerning a man there is a difference in his 'headship' to the woman. There is a difference to the manner in which the head of either the woman or tha man needs to be treated - WHEN and only when PRAYING OR PROPHESYING. It is only addressed in respect to this all important spiritual activity BEFORE GOD. In the end, it must be a matter of conscience - not a matter of YOU MUST DO this. If one is of the view that hair is the ONLY covering a believing woman needs to concern herself with, then Paul would have used the same Greek word in every case where it is implied or meant. But he uses another word. If the issue is only about hair being the covering - short for a man or long for a woman, then the phrase - Men ought NOT to have their head covered when in prayer of prophesying, this would mean that he must remove his hair while doing so otherwise he is dishonouring his head. But if he has any hair on his head then he is covered on his head unless he is bald. I put it to you that honouring or dishonouring his or her head must be seen in Paul's initial opening statement. THE HEAD of every man is Christ. Christ is his covering. How can long hair on a man dishonour his physical head? If he covers his head (not with hair) but with a cloth of somekind while praying or prophesying, then he is dishonouring Jesus. The head of the womn is man. How can long hair or short hair on a woman dishonour her physical head? If she does NOT have something down over her head other than hair, she is dishonouring her husband. Because a man or, a husband is her head - her covering If this is not so, then the opening statement of Paul is insignificant to the following discussion he makes. If the "HEAD" is only about the woman's head or the man's head, it doesn't make sense BUT spiritual headship IS NOT insignificant. It is critical. Spiritual headship is all about authority; supreme, or delegated. Blessings in Jesus
@@ianmcdonald8648 Thanks for your reply. It has a bit of unnecessary information which I will point out but in a sense, I think you are very close to getting the whole picture. First, I will agree that “What was common then is not common now” and that it is easy to “…weigh up Scritpure accdording to what our experience has been.” Which is why it is important that we simply read the Scriptures as is and not as what we want them to appear to be. Now you mentioned that to you personally “…it doesn't matter … whether a woman has short hair or long hair, they are free to have long or short hair.” And that if Paul is mentioning length of hair and that being the woman’s glory that it would be reasonable to submit ourselves to the instruction of the Word of God and that the same goes for men regarding keeping their hair short. So far we are on the same page completely. We are also in agreement to the importance of God’s word, which are inspired, that we should inspect each word and that Paul is speaking about authority with apostolic authority given by God, That Jesus gave authority to the disciples and that there is a difference in his 'headship' from the man to the woman that all of which really goes without saying. But then you said…..”There is a difference to the manner in which the head of either the woman or tha man needs to be treated - WHEN and only when PRAYING OR PROPHESYING. It is only addressed in respect to this all important spiritual activity BEFORE GOD.” Here is where I disagree. You are adding the words “when and ONLY when” regarding praying or prophesying. Paul did not say these words. Paul was not giving two conditions here, he was simply giving two examples. Take note that these extra words were made to convey your interpretation that Paul is making an exclusive statement, when the surrounding verses do not adhere to this. You will note that he refers to “praying” in verse 13 and not prophesying. This should be taken as a clue. Another is that a man ought not to cover while praying or prophesying, but then we read that men ought not to cover because of the creation order, then another reason is that men are the image and glory of God. But these last two reasons appear that a man shouldn’t be covered at any time. The main problem is that some think that Paul was giving conditions when in fact he was giving a couple of examples. Watch how some people would likely be disgruntled if we were to put this idea of two conditions to the test………. IF there were really “ONLY” two then it stands to reason that a woman CAN perform ANY OTHER act WITHOUT a covering and that the same goes for men WITH a covering. (Most people tend to be flabbergasted when confronted with this simple logic) So, according to the two exclusive conditions theory a woman CAN wear a covering while speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, or any other miracle. Or how about this, since the conditions do not forbid singing then a woman CAN wear a covering while singing. But for some that might clash with the belief that a woman should be covered during some kind of worship service or moment. But we must stick to the “when and only when” theory, right? I have yet to hear a veil promoter who I would think would stick to their “when and only when” theory say yes that is true. Most try to find a loophole in this logic and suddenly add more “conditions” which nullifies their own belief. No one asks themselves why would Paul be concerned with just two instances? Why would he exclude one in verse 13? Why say men can’t be covered under two conditions then go on about other things why they shouldn’t be covered. Sir, I am giving you hard evidence why the verses cannot be referring to veils or hats and you should take note because otherwise you will be believing in someone’s interpretation simply because they did not think through the implications or consider the context or surrounding verses. You then stated that “In the end, it must be a matter of conscience - not a matter of YOU MUST DO this.” Not sure how to answer this as people are free to make decisions whether they be wrong or right. But I think it is evident that Paul is saying they should stick to the natural order of things and that being covered (covered in long hair) for women and short hair for men. Both parties should obey otherwise it dishonors the head and that it brings forth shame according to Paul. And note how this fits perfectly in the world today when women have a very manly haircut and when men have very effeminate looking hair. As children we know something to be off when seeing others not following the natural order God set up. To say that Paul would have used the same Greek word in every case where it is implied or meant, is not really proof of anything. Paul was free to use any words to chose and like using the words perbolaiou or katakalupto. Neither word gives any credence to a foreign object. Both easily fits into the properties of hair. Please note the following excerpt “Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around” (perbolaiou). In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the examples first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai.’ - Bernie Parsons Since I already stated that Paul mentioned praying and prophesying as examples and not conditions, therefore the idea of removing a man’s hair while doing so cannot apply. Basically, Paul was saying that it simply looks even worse if he were praying or prophesying being covered in long hair. So, if he were doing something else holy or godly he would still look bad if he were covered in long hair. As far as dishonoring the head one can make the argument that Paul was either referring to the authorities or actual heads. In either case I see no problem in understanding if the man having long hair would dishonor Jesus since he is the head of man or that the man having long hair dishonors his own head as he would be the one dishonoring himself walking around with hair like a woman. Not sure how you cannot see this. Some like to combine the dishonoring the head and shame sections as they are both negative consequences with some similarities. “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him?” Shame unto whom? Unto HIM. But that’s an argument for another time. Then you want to add the word “CLOTH” “If he covers his head (not with hair) but with a cloth of some kind while praying or prophesying, then he is dishonoring Jesus.” Saying this doesn’t make it true. There is NO word like CLOTH” and like I said it meant covered in long hair as verse 15 clearly defines. I agree that the head of the woman is man. But to question “How can long hair or short hair on a woman dishonour her physical head?” is not hard to understand if head means herself. But that is another argument, but I lean more toward that the idea that I think you do also that there are two types of heads being referred to here. One with authority and the other a physical head. You stated “…If she does NOT have something down over her head other than hair, she is dishonoring her husband. Because a man or, a husband is her head - her covering…” You are clearly stating that if she does not have something down over her head (her physical head) then she would be dishonoring her other HEAD the husband or man” (Note it doesn’t say the word “husband” this refers to all men and women not wives and husbands.) This is the verse in question: 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. KJV So you know that the word “head” (though written twice) are not referring to the same thing since you are arguing that the woman must wear something on her head and that her head is a man. Therefore I (like yourself) believe that there are two types of heads here and do not believe as you are painting that I believe that the "HEAD" is ONLY about the woman's head or the man's head. Therefore there is no argument here in this respect. But as for others mentioned there is more than enough evidence that Paul was referring to the covering as long hair and uncovered as short hair. Blessings in Jesus, also.
The angels apoken of are the same angels spoken of in genesis 6. Fallen angels who took wives and created nephilim. Women must cover their head....because of the angels. Not the good ones. ;)
The reference in chapter 6 has to do with making judgments about ordinary matters. If we are to judge angels, then surely we (including women) can make decisions in ordinary matters.
Corinth was a melting pot of cultures. - God's purpose is to use the church to display His infinite wisdom to the powers in the spiritual realm. Paul gives many reasons for head covering that transcend cultural limitations. Who's glory should be seen? God's glory!
This is what the verse means! In this chapter, Paul gives direction regarding the headship arrangement. A Christian woman should wear a head covering when she’s praying or prophesying in the congregation. It is “a sign of authority,” a visible proof even to the angels that the woman acknowledges the role of leadership that God has assigned to appointed men in the congregation. Wearing a head covering under certain circumstances shows that a woman willingly submits to congregation authority.
MY Opinion: The head covering used by a woman is 1st: for her honor. & 2nd: A symbol of authority = A way of telling Angels, (or concealing from them a womans beauty), that she would/could not be taken as a wife, for it had happened very early on in Genesis. References: Genesis 6:1-4, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6, Book of Enoch chapters 6+7. I've heard this is also is the belief in Islam (to conceal womens beauty from Angels), but I am not able to find it in the Quran, nor am I qualified to speak on the Islamic faith.
Its sounds like he is tapdancing around the real meaning. My understanding was because of the fallen ones who fell because they slept with human woman.
I suppose that the first step to get a good sense of what Genesis 6 refers to is to start on what, at least I think, is the best version which would be the KJ Bible. If you permit me I would like to quote from here the pertinent verse on this subject. And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. If one were to just concentrate on a couple of words within the verses one could mistake Giants to mean tall men. Moreso when one tries to add the idea that the Sons of God to mean angels and that there was some hybrid of men and angels that had caused tall men to be born aka giants. But the surrounding verses give a different conclusion to this idea. Genesis 6 is talking about men not angels. It doesn’t say angels. You are accepting the false idea that angels can have relations with women. If you think that the sons of God were angels then you are not considering Hebrews 1 which states: For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father " ? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son" ? Meaning he never said that any of the angels were his sons so that kills your theory. As for the verses in Genesis 6 it states in the first verse that MEN began to multiply and that they had fair-looking daughters in verse two, of which were noticed by the sons of God. Given that believers or followers of God are also described as sons we can likely assume that they are referring to those who chose to follow God. Another clue is that they took from these women, WIVES. So let’s paint a picture for a moment if they were angels. To take someone to wife must mean that they LIVED in a matrimonial household. If it were a one-night stand I think it would have said so. Therefore, are we to imagine that certain angels with the powers they possess married human women who then had to plow the field, tend the animals, raise the children, etc? Sounds very unlikely. Verse 3 already shows something of God’s displeasure limiting their time on earth and that his spirit won’t always strive with man it could be because the sons of God should have chosen from their own rank or group as opposed to those who are the daughters of men. But that of course is debatable. Verse 4 is where we read about giants but if we read the rest of the verse it keeps describing these men as those who “BECAME mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Meaning it took time for them to become legends or mighty or renowned. Since we all know that we can use the words to describe someone as renowned or great by using the word “giant” (e.g. “he was a giant among men”) it would seem to fit perfectly with the rest of the words making this same description. God continues to reveal his displeasure in that men are wicked all the time in verse 5 and states he repented making man in verses 6 and 7. So it would seem God was unhappy with MEN when they were choosing their wives and after more men were born from this union. But if there were male angels taking women as wives then shouldn’t they and only the women be punished and not all men? Therefore the logical conclusion is that they are referring to certain men regarded as the sons of God and that the word giants can and does have another meaning.
@robertmiller812 as detailed as your analysis is, you still are over thinking the interpretation. Or honestly it just sounds like you where taught a certain religious way and refuse to deviate from it. It doesn't make sense thar God is speaking about man. Because it is not wrong for man to be with women. There is a significance to that event. It's a little naive to think its just talking about men displeasing God because they chose women. We know there where giants in those days. So its not illogical to think when it talks about giants that is what is meant. Goliath among others are mentioned. So why then is it farfetched to believe angels slept with woman and gave birth to giants? And also doesn't sons of God translate to fallen ones?
@@godhandninja I wasn’t taught anything in a certain religious way. It is a simple and unbiased analysis of the passage in question along with the pertinent verses that directly relate to the topic of angels. I never said that it was wrong to be with a woman. What you seem to be overlooking is that the sons of God are those who sided with God (just like we can read in other passages that men can be the adopted sons of God) and those that are the daughters of men are those who sided with man and NOT God. That is the reason for God’s displeasure that instead of choosing the women within the group that sided with God they chose women outside their group. Read it again but look at it logically. Action and reaction. “…the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man,…” God’s godly men chose women from a group they shouldn’t have simply because some of them were good looking (ACTION). Immediately after that God was displeased and spoke against MAN, not angels… MAN. (This is the REACTION). I don’t understand why you are unable to recognize this? It’s as if you were intentionally blinded to understand. It is irrelevant if there were giants back in the day what matters is that one does not follow these fairy tales. You say that just because that men can grow very tall that it shouldn’t be farfetched to believe angels slept with woman and gave birth to giants. That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life. Of course, it is farfetched because one is just men being tall naturally and the other is about sexual relations between two different entities. The two are no where near relatable. Men being very tall does not require copulation of angels with women. Are you going to say that the famous Robert Wadlow was the product of such a union? No, of course not therefore giant men do not require angels to be involved. Please reread the passage with the knowledge that there were godly men and women from ungodly men and may I suggest that it be from the King James bible.
In Genesis 6 some of the fallen angels took human women and lay with them and they gave birth to hybrid giants. I know some think 🤔 this has some reference to this.
Why would you want him to do that? There is no biblical basis for a man to read the word of God with or without a hat. You know we can't just make up doctrines, right?
Am so sad about your thought brother , heavenly beings are our brothers also and we not gonna cause any trouble to them by any means by saying such you doubting their character. Please Dont. What 1 Corinthians 11:10 saying is Simply because Angels are also Men, Men and woman on earth must not break the order when coming in presence of Lord (Praying) coz if men wear head covering he will disgrace his Head ( Christ ) as well as fellow angels because they also must cover their head coz of you ? Ofcorse not. Revelation 22:9 But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!” Same with woman if she wont wear covering she will not just disgrace her man but also Angels in Heaven who are our fellow brothers in Heaven. So if one person whether its a man or woman doesn't follow the order will disgrace the rest of the fellow servants of the Lord thats why its says because of the Angels nothing else. Holy angels are our brothers and who care for our well being so dont doubt their character. God Bless You all
May God bless you brother........but you did not answer the question.......simple question but very very complicated answer.....it goes round and round..............so please answer the question does a woman need to cover her hair while praying ....simply yes or no.......and ..if she does not cover her hair ......... what will happen to her and the angels.thank you.......
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.) 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. -excerpt John 12 A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes Reply for post if desired. It includes scriptures and commentary.
I can answer that easily. A woman does not need to cover her hair. It says to cover her head meaning cover it with long hair. So no to a foreign object but yes to long hair. Lastly, if she doesn't cover her head with a foreign object nothing will happen to her, but if she maintains short hair we can only assume that the angels may testify as to her disobedience. Aside from this she may get some side-eye looks since it doesn't seem natural.
HEAD COVERING IN BIBLE. 1 CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 11 VERSE 5 TO 6 VERSE 5 : " BUT EVERY WOMAN WHO PRAYS OR PROPHESIED WITH HER HEAD UNCOVERED DISHONORS HER HEAD _ IT IS THE SAME AS HAVING HER HEAD SHAVED .' VERSE 6 : " FOR IF A WOMAN DOES NOT COVER HER HEAD , SHE MIGHT AS WELL HAVE HER HAIR CUT OFF , BUT IF IT IS A DISGRACE FOR A WOMAN TO HAVE HER HAIR CUT OFF OR HER HEAD SHAVED , THEN SHE SHOULD COVER HER HEAD .'
My muslim friend, you didn't read the whole chapter. This is a complex issue. 1 cor 11:2-16 is one of the hardest parts in the bible to understand. You can't just quote a bit and use it as an islamic dawah tool without explaining context. 1 Corinthians 11:15 says: But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering. That changes things around now doesn't it?
I am not a muslim, however, it doesnt make sense, that Paul talks about a womans need for headcovering so long and then says "by the way, its actually her hair". The church fathers also did not interpret it as hair. The passage "if a woman doesnt want to cover herself (doesnt want to have long hair) should also get shorn" wouldnt make any sense at all. The whole culture thing is also not an issue for the church fathers, they infact mention reasons as "the angels" or "creation".
@@godfreyegbon22 I agree. A woman should cover her head when she prays and/or prophecies (teaches). If it was hair, then how can you put your hair on when you pray and or/prophecy and then take it off when you don't! Utter foolishness.
Cultural context? There is none. To assume that women did this only in Corinth is to miss the greater principal and revelation. Of course, if you read verses 14-16 you see that ALL the churches practiced this and you also see that it is a shame for man to wear long hair. To inconvenient for your belief system? OK- just make it a cultural practice. False teaching.This is exactly the mistake that all denominational pastors/ believers make...they assume that the early church was in some way living for God according to social mores and practices. False. This passage in particular is a revelation about submission, angelic interaction and the original fall. Unfortunately, the lifestyle of the Apostolic church is just too far of a stretch for most. Which is why the hermeneutical error employed here works so well...even though it is patently false.
Ha ha ha, wrong, 1 Corinthians 11: 3 Christ is the head of man. How does man show that? The man keeps his head uncovered. Man is the head of the household, the head of his wife. How does the woman show that her husband is the head? She covers her head. Paul appeals to Genesis and creation. Does not sound like it was culture. Was culture having the man have his head uncovered???? When did Paul ever need to adjust scripture due to culture???
You started out good on the topic of the angels, but then you started to promote the traditional philosophy of polytheism in disguise. This evil mystery of the trinity. The Father of Jesus is the one true God Almighty and Jesus is a man (John 8:40)
The Roman men of occupied Corinth dishonoured their head which is Christ by mixing pagan practices like head covers while praying or convening....Roman women had also pagan head covers as was customary to prove that they were married in the public sphere so that other men wouldn't persue them,they were also not aloud to teach or pray to the Roman sun god without their husbands present..........Paul was using this as an illustration of don't cheat on Jesus with your Satanic head covers...Jesus replaces your head covering and Jesus through the man replaces his wifes head covering...simple
Within the religious customs of the Romans at Pauls time ...The "elite" Roman men had religious hoods on their Togas called the {Birrus}.They would pull this hood over their head when praying or preforming a sacrifice to their sun god by Roman law...When Paul preached the gospel to these Roman gentiles they started to convert to Christ through the Holy Spirit..but out of their ignorance they started to pray to Christ with their head covered which was idolatry...Roman women also had a head covering called the {Palla} but this head covering was for married Roman women and they had to wear this head covering to honour their husbands when they went out in public....Paul was basically saying that Christ is the head of the " new Roman Christian man" and if you pray to Jesus like you used to pray to your old sun god you dishonour Christ...just like in principle if your wives didn't wear there head coverings they would dishonour you and your marriage....Paul was using their own customs to illustrate that they needed to purge all Roman sun god worship out of their lives to truly be alive in Christ.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 90 | คู่เอก "ก้องไกล vs แอนตาร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VugIvOstzRI/mqdefault.jpg)
Love the way you are just so conversational. It is like a conversion with a friend who has spent many hours studying the bible and who share the information is a very simple way - plainly that can easily be understood. You have a gift. Thanks for all the work you folks do.
Grateful that we can be an encouragement to you Robert. Pray with us Colossians 4:2-6 !
He missed the point. Its referring to a wife/woman staying under the authority of her head/covering/husband.
Thank you I said the same thing 😆
So what are the Angles to do with that verse then? If she is u under his roof
he explained that in ancient corinth the symbol of a female under submission to a man was a head covering
Very true I thought the same way. Paul mentions the angels in order to explain things further I believe.
@@princeofpeace794 angels are covered, look at the ark of the covenant. They are protectors. Women with uncut hair protect their house and the angels understand that cuz they understand coverings!!
I have to agree with a couple of commentators here in that the main speaker is spouting all sorts of things with NO PROOF whatsoever. He clearly is giving his opinion because there is NO EVIDENCE that Paul was saying that due to the angels women ought to wear something on their heads otherwise it will be a source of trouble or discouragement for them. (minute 3:50)
I know he did not outright say the words (women ought to wear some kind of covering because...) but it is clearly implied.
He continues this ridiculous idea in min 6:05 saying that Paul is saying "...why would you trouble them (the angels)? Why would you break their heart in acting and rebellion against god...?"
What?
Can the lack of a covering somehow magically influence an angel?
He then tries to make the hearer feel guilty because if we call ourselves the "church" then we shouldn't be doing rebellious things and "incite" angels.
YES he said INCITE!
So by doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and by that I mean not wearing some kind of covering you (women) can incite angels!
Oh and that we shouldn't cause the angels trouble. WHAT?!
Where is this guy getting this information from? This is absolute hogwash!
If you are going to theorize say it and not make it seem like this is absolute truth. This is how false doctrine starts and then a complete misunderstanding of what 1 Corinthians is trying to convey.
Can you imagine what the woman might be thinking sitting next to him if she accepts this junk. "Oh poor angels I don't want to cause them trouble let me go find a hat or something"
This is shocking, shameful and this man ought to repent quickly.
I don't think you are using context here. It is not cultural but a truth of respecting headship, which is from the beginning with creation (11:7-9). You contradicted yourself. The headcoverings are in the context of the gathering of the church. In the first chapter (1:2), this letter to the Corinthian church was for all believers and was to be circulated among the other churches therefore it was not limited to Corinth. If it were cultural, then Paul, the Holy Spirit do not distinguish between important doctrines, such as headship, Lord's supper, gatherings of the church, the angels who are looking in amazement that fallen mankind can be redeemed and worship. It says earlier in the chapter that headship was from the beginning with creation and did not distinguish between what was for every believer and only for the church at Corinth. The headcovering is to cover a woman's glory, which is her hair so she can give glory to the man, who in turn remains uncovered to give glory to Jesus Christ. This is not demeaning to the women but it has become that way because preachers teach it to be cultural in Corinth, which is demeaning to the women. I think you need more study on this subjects. Unfortunately, seminaries and often commentaries do not explain this passage from Scripture in i's context for fear from pressure during the feminist movement. Over the years, they have adjusted their Biblical understanding of the marvellous passage that honours the Lord, demonstrates how we can show to the angels our humble spirit during the gathering of the Lord's people with these simple symbols.
Excuse me mister expert but your way off.
Thank you for deeper understanding of this text. This text is not simply
A costume of the time. Paul’s prescriptive women covering head appoints
back to the creation of authority God instituted.
Sounds like Paul says this is not a social concern but a heavenly concern. Cover your head because it’s a heavenly concern.
Lol 😂
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Very funny what a loon. Covering the head with a man-made earthly veil is of heavenly concern. LOL When God ALREADY gave woman long hair as the covering. 🤣🤣
I always thought that Paul was referring to the Genesis and the fact that some angels lusted over the beautiful women. Transforming so that they could have relations with them, creating offspring. Giants, which were not after their own kind as God had said.
Genesis 6:1 When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal ; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. 5 The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created-and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground-for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
Me too!
I read it this way as well and am considering covering my self.
what about the angels ? though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those ⌈also⌉ do who die and perish. 5. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. 6. But you were ⌈formerly⌉ spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. 7. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling. 8. And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. 9. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men, ⌈⌈and⌉⌉ from the holy Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; ⌈they shall be evil spirits on earth, and⌉ evil spirits shall they be called. [10. As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.] 11. And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, ⌈but nevertheless hunger⌉ and thirst, and cause offences. And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded ⌈from them⌉.
Me too ! That's what I was taught
I agree, I thought the head covering for woman, in regards to Angels, was for protection for Angels so as it would help them not lust for woman or as protection for woman from Fallen Angels would might lust for woman.
Why does it seem that there can not be one consensus for so many questions?
In one way it helps my Faith that I will be saved so we, the Elect, can be taught the TRUTH during the 1000 years of peace..
The culture of Head coverings changed during the feminist movement in the early 1900s. Ask your grandma and she would say all women wear hats back in her day.
Yep!
They also didn’t cut their hair
How do you start off talking about context ignore the entire context then completely ignore the context of the scripture 😂
😂😆
😆😆
Thank you for talking about this.
I felt called to cover my head about two years ago and feel so much more peaceful, calm, and content when I cover my head/ hair.
This was not a cultural thing in Corinath. There's is NO historical accuracy to what you guys just said about uncovered women in Corinath. This is a lie that has created into the church in only the last 100 years. Headcovering was actually counter cultural. Jewish and Corinathian men covered during prayer and worship, and Corinathian and Jewish women uncovered.
1 Cor 11 is pretty clear that a woman should cover or veil her head in public worship. The word for covering in 1 Corthians 11:4, 5,6,7, 13, is the word, katakalýptō, from katá, "down, and kalýptō, "to cover"-cover down, to make appropriate (complete), i.e. to wear a veil.
It is the root word used for the veil that separated the Holy of holies from the priests.
But only in vrs 15, where Paul is giving an example from nature is a different word used, "but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering."
This is different word from the others for "cover"= "peribolaion," that which is tossed around or a mantel that can be thrown around the shoulders and body (As in when a women tosses or throws her hair around).
Cover in the first few verses of 1 Cor 11, should really be translated veil as that is the proper Greek word used.
Katakalýptō was NEVER used in Greek for hair.
This is where we get the English saying, "Let your hair down." Becuase during the "sexual revolution" women let their hair down out of their buns, uncovered their hair and shook it back and forth. Which is very alluring to man.
If hair if the covering as some people say, can men be bald or take their hair off and on? No obviously not. This is why men take their hats off in church or at baseball games, etc.
Also, since woman's hair is her glory, it should be covered because we are not to show our glory when we come into the presence of the LORD. Only the LORD'S glory should be on display. Not woman's.
Plus the veil or covering is it be a symbol of us coming under God's authority to the angels. And since all women have hair, that is not a symbol. We put a covering or veil on our head as a symbol that we are coming under authority to remind the fallen, and not fallen angles that we are in obedient to God's order. (As Satan rebelled because he wanted more authority). Also it's also because angels are in church services and they can't see our hearts, but they can see a veil. Angels partake in the gathering of the saints and want to look intently into our worship time. (1 Tim 5:21, 1 peter 1:12, Rev 2:1, 2:8, 2:12, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 3:14)
Up until only the last two generations woman covered in Church. All of our grandmothers would have covered in church. This is why the Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, the orthodox churches, a lot of African congratations, and Messiniac Beleivers, etc still cover their hair.
Here's some verses in the OT about head covering. Hope these help.
Isaiah 47:1-2. Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones and grind flour, "put off your veil", strip off your robe, uncover your legs, pass through the rivers.
(So as we can see, even virgins were to keep their heads covered and save their hair for their husbands. Otherwise it is like they are showing all their nakedness).
Numbers 5:18. Then the priest shall stand the woman before the LORD, "uncover the woman’s head," and put the offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse.
Also Genesis 20:16 says in the Hebrew
Then to Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; indeed this is "a covering for her eyes" (to put back on her wedding covering) you before all who are with you and before everybody.” Thus she was rebuked.
From what I understand In Genesis 24:65. Rebekah covers herself because the bridal price has already been paid. 2 vrs later we see Isaac take Rebekah bright away into his tent. There was no wedding ceremony. Her covering herself was an outward show of her marriage to Isaac. Since they were married he was allowed to take her right away into his tent and "uncover" her.
God bless you sister. Stand true on God's word
How insightful!! Thank you for this.
With all due respect this doctrine is not quite true.
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 and assumes that such a person already has long hair and is wrong for not doing so. 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 believe 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 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 “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 not to 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 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 have 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 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.
Maybe there's nothing wrong with memorizing verses --- if you memorize all the verses before and after the verse.
That's what he said 😀
Did this guy have a problem when Jesus quoted singular Bible versus when tempted by Satan? Jesus only used memorized singular Old Testament versus from Deuteronomy.
@@michaelsage4599 The purpose of memorizing veses before and after is to help alleviate misuse of any given verse totally out of context. I'm not worried about the almighty misusing verses out of context.
It's not a cultural reference, but a reference to the angelic hierarchies, like Jude appeals to the humility of Michael when rebuking Satan to rebuke his adversaries.
Context is important you say? Then why the context of this chapter not being explained
No mention of Second Temple Period Jewish Angelology?
I like how his explanation of angles and head coverings makes absolutley no sense. Disrupting the angles...??? Sometimes its okay to swallow your pride and simply say "I don't know".
Thank you so much this really helped
This guy can’t even read scripture without trying to apply it. He has a history of dancing around scriptures on many topics and trying to sound intelligent with his many words to explain away scripture (giving his opinion).
With many words sin is not absent. - Provers 10:19
Very good very good the best answer I’ve head on this subject
This is inappropriate teaching of Scripture. There's not enough info in the verse to give a rock solid answer. "Because of the angels" could mean all kinds of things. I would say, "I don't know what that means, it doesn't give enough info to be certain." But if you want to share some theories that would be fine, as long as it's not taught as fact. Teaching Scripture 101: Don't teach what's not there. Never teach assumptions or theories as facts. It's OK to say you don't know what something means.
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Agreed. This guy and the people nodding in agreement are dangerous. Christians should know better than to preach things they cannot prove. Not a good example of someone doing their homework.
Everything he said is in the Bible he didn’t make anything up, he studied the question and got a good answer that makes sense, the Bible don’t go into detail about a lot of things that’s why we have to study , if u thirst for meaning of scripture you’ll study for an answer
Mike Winger has a 7 hour video on this & even after exploring as many possibilities as he could think of it is still inconclusive.
Women arnt supposed to cut or shorn their hair. Not that hard. Our hair is out glory and protects the family. Angels are covered so they understand coverings
Shame. Because of his doctrine he dances around the real literal meaning
Dances? The guy is blocks away from the club to dance at all. The guy is way off and offers little to no proof to what he's pitching
4:56
Thank you.
God bless.
He said context is important, but then didn’t use the context around the verse to explain it. Paul’s reasoning is not from the customs and cultures of that day, but of creation in Genesis. Paul does say decide for yourself v13. As for the angels it is only going to be assumption using scripture- eg you could say the angels are watching and they are under authority, just as the women is under the authority of their individual husbands and their husbands (&them) under the authority of Christ, based on order of creation and reason for creation given in Genesis. Etc
This man has made reasonable inferences of what the verse may mean - taken slightly out of its context. I haven’t yet come across any one who has explained this section of scripture well. It is a difficult part of scripture to tackle. Well done for trying when most don’t.
I Have a question. "Is it okay to joke or laugh @ a joke" because its vain or because it says we shouldn't joke...I think
I’m not sure I understand your question, could you please elaborate?
Let there be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse [obscene or vulgar] joking, because such things are not appropriate [for believers]; but instead speak of your thankfulness [to God].
Ephesians 5:4 AMP
A woman choses to submit or choses to rebel. That is the power she has to help/ empower her husband through submission. Thus she should use the power positively as holy Angels carry petitions of women who cover their hair faster. Whereas evil angels see uncovered hair as spiritual flirting and lust or even spiritually marry or try to bond to such women. Since they think a rebellious woman is of their kind and they have the astral right to be married to such women. Uncovered hair in women attracts negativity but covered hair attracts favour, blessings and makes you easily heard by holy angels and facilitates God's work through such women.
Can you provide any Scripture to support what you're saying about the prayers of uncovered women being carried slower by the goof angels due to spiritual warfare with the evil ones?
“..evil Ángels see uncovered hair as spiritual flirting…”. That is hilarious 😂 I only hope you were joking.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matterthey see it as a woman not submitting. Which can open her up to attacks.
@@wendya5887 But the question is "not submitting to what?" What exactly would a woman be doing that would allegedly "open her up to attacks" And where does it say that an attack would or could happen if a woman does not submit to whatever the thing she is not submitting to? If that is what they are saying then they would need to prove with evidence otherwise they are making up an imaginary situation.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter submitting to the ordinances of God.
The more appropriate response in the more logical conclusion is this is a reference to Genesis 6. The beauty of human women has a profound effect even on angels. The book of Job clearly demonstrates that the sons of God are indeed angels referenced in Genesis 6. In today's modernized feminized society I don't expect this to get much traction. Very disappointed with the interpretation I understand it may be unpopular but you have to lead with the most likely point of reference
"because of the angels" -- the first thing you have to do is see if Paul refers to the angels earlier in the letter. It turns out Paul mentions them in chapter 6:3 "Do you not know that we will judge angels? Why not ORDINARY matters!" In 1 Cor 11:10 then, Paul is saying that since a woman has two heads (her husband and Christ), like men she also should uncover her head (as it represents shame for sin), but if she has an unbelieving Jewish husband, if she uncovers her head, he could divorce her. She has to consider both of her heads. "a symbol of" is not in the Greek. The text says that she should have the authority over her own head...to make her own decision. Paul is not forcing her to do something that results in her unbelieving husband divorcing her.
I have been bothered by this chapter a lot and I just looked up the original Greek and you are right even the kjv can be read this way it makes sense for me now. Thanks so much 😀❤️
Your comment made a lot more sense then the video! Thank you very helpful
Wack job twisting of truth. Wow
She does not have two heads. She has the husband, and the husband's head is Christ, whose head is God the Father. This is the umbrella of submission and protection and is the ideal.
A woman choses to submit or choses to rebel. That is the power she has to help/ empower her husband through submission. Thus she should use the power positively as holy Angels carry petitions of women who cover their hair faster. Whereas evil angels see uncovered hair as spiritual flirting and lust or even spiritually marry or try to bond to such women. Since they think a A woman choses to submit or choses to rebel. That is the power she has to help/ empower her husband through submission. Thus she should use the power positively as holy Angels carry petitions of women who cover their hair faster. Whereas evil angels see uncovered hair as spiritual flirting and lust or even spiritually marry or try to bond to the women. Since they think a rebellious woman is of their kind and their astral right to be married to such women.
Oh my goodness how did u lean this, teach me
Because of the angels should be part of the following sentence. So verse 11 becomes
Nevertheless, because of the angels, neither woman without man nor man without woman.
In 1 Cor 11:2-16 Paul is giving us his authoritative interpretation of Genesis 1 "image of God" and Genesis 2 the creation of woman out of man. The image of God entails the 2 stage creation of Adam, as a man and then woman out of him. This is what Paul is referring to with "man is the ..glory of God" and "woman is the glory of man". Together they complete Adam as the image of God.
Now, the reference to angels is from Psalm 8 which is a creation psalm outlining the order of creation and all reality. The order throughout all reality from top to bottom is an hierarchical order in Psalm 8. Paul is using the Psalm 8 hierarchical order of reality as a grid when he discusses Gen 1 and 2. His argument and conclusion is that man is the head of woman.
However, he knows that Psalm 8 only mentions mankind. It does not delineate mankind into man and woman as Gen 2 does.
So, verse 11 nevertheless, because of the angels, ie because in psalm 8, netther woman without man nor man without woman.
So it is 😢 Paul saying he recognises Psalm 8 does not mention man andcwoman.
The next verse, verse 12, then explains why it is okay for Psalm 8 to just mention mankind.
Verse 12 for, in the Lord, just as woman out of man, so also man through woman.
Woman out of man is a repetition of what Paul said earlier from Gen 2.
In the Lord, is telling us that Christ is the creator of man and woman as detailed in Gen 2. Just as Christ is the creator of the fact that every man is born from a woman. The two things together tells us that Christ had made us, man and woman, to be in this together, albeit with different tasks. Just as verse 11 has said that the psalmist expresses us being together as mankind.
Now, how do we know that "in the Lord" refers to Christ as our creator.
We know it because back in chapter 8:6 of 1 corinthians it told us that "one Lord, Jesus Christ through whom are all things...". That this is what "in the Lord" is referring to is confirmed by the last part of 1 cor 11:12c "and all things out of God (presumably God the Father)" which is the same as what was said about God the Father in 1 cor 8:6 "one God the Father out of whom all things".
So 1 cor 11 including the issue of covering or not covering one head and including verse 3 about headship of woman and man and Christ, is all about examining and applying 1 Cor 8:6 regarding the eternal relationship of God the Father to Christ Jesus the Lord.
So, 1 cor 11:3 sums up the application of the hierarchical order of reality grid of Psalm 8 to man and woman, and to Christ and man, and to God the Father and Christ thd Lord. All 3 are hierarchical relationships. All 3 image the other just like Gen 2 shows us how the building of woman out of man makes Adam the image of God.
I have to agree with a couple of commentators here (Michael Sage & StormRider) in that the main speaker is spouting all sorts of things with NO PROOF whatsoever. He clearly is giving his opinion because there is NO EVIDENCE that Paul was saying that due to the angels women ought to wear something on their heads otherwise it will be a source of trouble or discouragement for them. (minute 3:50) I know he did not outright say the words (women ought to wear some kind of covering because...) but it is clearly implied. He continues this ridiculous idea in min 6:05 saying that Paul is saying (to the women why? because the topic is about the phrase "because of the angels" which is in reference to women) "...why would you trouble them why would you break their heart in acting and rebellion against god..." What? Can the lack of a covering somehow magically influence an angel? He then tries to make the hearer feel guilty because if we call ourselves "church" we shouldn't be doing rebellious things and "incite" angels. YES he said INCITE! So by doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING and by that I mean not wearing some kind of covering you (women) can incite angels. Oh and that we shouldn't cause them (angels) trouble. WHAT?! Where is this guy getting this information from? This is absolute hogwash! I agree with StormRider if you are going to theorize say it and not make it seem like this is absolute truth. This is how false doctrine starts and then a complete misunderstanding of what 1 Corinthians is trying to convey. Can you imagine what the woman might be thinking next to him if she accepts this junk. "Oh poor angels I don't want to cause them trouble let me go find a hat or something" This is shocking, shameful and this man ought to repent quickly.
It’s just not simply a custom of the time cuz Paul refer to the creation of how God
created the authority from the creation.
True but if he refers to creation then he could not be talking about a manufactured head covering. It has to be natural and since long hair is the covering according to verse 15 then it stands to reason that it must be regarding hair.
This is one of the worst interpretation I have heard. Incite angels....🙄...give me a break. What nonsense. Can someone please delete this whole video before someone takes them seriously>
I have yet to hear a clear and definitive explanation of this verse. Maybe the mystery of it is yet to be unlocked.
Here is the clear and definitive explanation you've been waiting for.
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.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
* 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?"
Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be “uncovered” should mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL should pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Why should the lack of a veil make a praying woman not have a “pleasing appearance” (aka look comely)? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is important so please don’t dismiss it.
Be honest with yourself do YOU really believe that the average person will look at an unveiled, praying woman and naturally think a VEIL is missing or would make her look unpleasing? Are we to assume that Paul expected the average person to have instilled within them the idea that a foreign object is missing from a woman? I have never seen or heard anyone say something like: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head?” after looking at a long-haired, praying woman. To so do would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. 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. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right that there is an unpleasing appearance. I think I can say with some assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a short-haired woman from behind especially if we are not sure if the person was male or female. It seems like a natural reaction especially when we were young.
Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation.
"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 ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong: whether it be OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (a.k.a. short hair) while praying or OBSERVING a man having long hair.
In addition, by using the word “NATURE” one can’t even use the excuse that perhaps they were expecting only Christians to see something different. Clearly, if “nature” teaches us that something looks off then it must include all of mankind as nature teaches all of us both Christian and non-Christian.
I would like to also add that these verses are NOT jumping from the discussion of a “veil” in verse 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in verse 14 like some would like to argue because you will note that verse 15 refers again to the woman which FLAT-OUT STATES the “covering” is to mean “long hair.” Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses are referring to hair length. By this, we can understand verse 4 which states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered as I previously mentioned.
I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due to the false interpretation that the verse is exclusive to two conditions instead of seeing them as two examples. As mentioned before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR.
* Did people really view unveiled women as someone shaved?
I know this question sounds weird but I’m not trying to be funny, veil promoters have literally stated that Paul (and likely others at the time) viewed unveiled women as though they were shaved based on 1st Corinthians 11:5. Why would anyone think that a woman, who typically has long hair, be equated to being shaved if they did not wear the alleged veil? It doesn’t make sense and when confronted the typical response is that that is just the way it should be accepted. To them, it simply doesn’t matter if it seems illogical.
So, let’s follow the logic of verse 5 based on the idea that unveiled women are equated to being shaved. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Looking at this woman would you really think that you are looking at someone who is shaved, just because she is not wearing a veil? Do you really think Christians really looked at unveiled women this way? Doesn’t that seem unrealistic and odd?
But if “uncovered” means “short hair” like a typical man’s haircut, then it would make much more sense. It seems more feasible that a woman with short hair (aka uncovered) is likened to being “shaven” than someone who has long hair and without a veil.
In other words, it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven bald rather than being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even if she has long hair) is somehow equal (or “likened”) to being shaved as veil promoters claim. I am almost always shocked when people don’t understand how this view is unrealistic and illogical.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter thank you for taking the time to respond in great detail. I appreciate it and don’t disagree with your logic. I should have been clearer as to why this verse is difficult to understand which would be the part pertaining to the angels. I would love to read your explanation of that part of the verse.
@@OpieApproved The part pertaining to angels that is a tough one for sure as most people agree it comes out of nowhere. We can only extrapolate a couple of truths from this. The first is that this verse is listed among the number of reasons why a woman ought to cover (obviously cover in long hair). The other is that angels are quoted as being ministering spirits in other verses so perhaps it means they are watching and testifying what we do. But that is of course debatable but not far fetched either.
Though I may not have too much to say on what they mean but I can at least offer a fair amount on what they don’t mean. For example there have been some who have taken this tiny section and expanded to mean a whole lot more and have connected this with Genesis 6 and the non-biblical book called the Book of Enoch. For whatever reason some people want to believe that women should wear a foreign object like a hat or veil to prevent angels from either lusting after women or have physical relations. Some have taken the first few verses of Genesis 6 to mean that the Sons of God were referring to angels who took human wives. (A similar idea is in the Book of Enoch). Then somehow for whatever reason some have assumed that the verse in 1 Cor 11 is in connection to Genesis 6 and that a veil somehow has the power to protect the women from lustful angels. I kid you not…. A lot of people believe this fairy tale.
So the question is (despite it already sounding ridiculous) what biblical evidence would prove this to be incorrect. First one should read Genesis 6:1-7.
Genesis 6 emphasizes the errors of man not angels. It states in the first verse that MEN began to multiply and that they had fair-looking daughters in verse two, of which were noticed by the sons of God. Given that believers or followers of God are also described as sons we can likely assume that they are referring to those who chose to follow God. Another clue is that they took from these women, WIVES. So let’s paint a picture for a moment if they were angels. To take someone to wife must mean that they LIVED in a matrimonial household. If it were a one-night stand I think it would have said so. Therefore, are we to imagine that certain angels with the powers they possess married human women who then had to plow the field, tend the animals, raise the children, etc? Sounds very unlikely. Verse 3 already shows something of God’s displeasure limiting their time on earth and that his spirit won’t always strive with man it could be because the sons of God should have chosen from their own rank or group as opposed to those who are the daughters of men. But that of course is debatable. Verse 4 is where we read about giants but if we read the rest of the verse it keeps describing these men as those who “BECAME mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Meaning it took time for them to become legends or mighty or renowned. Since we all know that we can use the words to describe someone as renowned or great by using the word “giant” (e.g. “he was a giant among men”) it would seem to fit perfectly with the rest of the words making this same description. God continues to reveal his displeasure in that men are wicked all the time in verse 5 and states he repented making man in verses 6 and 7.
So it would seem God was unhappy with MEN when they were choosing their wives and after more men were born from this union. But if there were male angels taking women as wives then shouldn’t they and only the women be punished and not all men? Therefore the logical conclusion is that they are referring to certain men regarded as the sons of God and that the word giants can and does have another meaning.
Lastly the idea that the sons of God were angels is contrary to scripture because Hebrews 1 states:
For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father " ? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son" ?
Meaning he never said that any of the angels were his sons so that kills the theory that the “sons of God” could ever mean angels. Not to mention the fact that Jesus had said that we would be like the angels who neither marry or are given in marriage.
Sorry for the length and the little information on what Paul could have been meaning.
@@robertmiller812 I appreciate the insight. Although you brought up another ambiguous part of the scripture in genesis as pertaining to the sons of God.
PAUL AND GOD AREN'T SAYING THIS IS A CULTURE THING BUT ALL CHURCHES SHOULD BE DOING THIS BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT AUTHORITY ORDER.
All churches should be doing what exactly? The passage refers to women maintaining their long and men's short and the reasons why and how it even naturally looks wrong. Nothing else here.
@@robertmiller812
Paul introduces the matter of head coverings with a foundation - AUTHORITY.
The whole thing is about authority.
God - (the Father)
Christ - (the Son)
Man - made in the image and likeness of God (is the eimage and glory of God)
Woman - taken from - came out of man (is the glory of man)
Paul says that the woman should have authority ON HER HEAD. If hair was the 'authority' on her head Paul would have made that abundantly clear - eg, Her hair is her authority" - but he doesn't say that.
Her long hair is her glory (doxa) - not her authority (exousia - delegated authority, freedom, privilege- etc) .
The covering over her head of hair is her exousia. And this shows in the spiritual realm that she is submitted to God's order of thiings - when she prays or prophesies..
@@ianmcdonald8648 With all due respect Paul is not introducing the matter of head coverings. Also to rearrange the words that the woman ought to “cover her head” to “head coverings” can be viewed as disingenuous. Since head coverings imply a foreign object on the head, whereas the other does not, since long hair has the capacity of covering the head. This foundation you speak of is true but not in regards to a foreign object but to the hair on men’s and women’s heads. Your overfocus on one word “authority” may be the cause that is blinding you from understanding all the other verses that clearly refer to hair.
The verse in question in the KJ version states: “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” It says “power” on her head, it doesn’t say a hat or a bonnet or a veil that you seem to see. Although I can agree it does not say explicitly that her hair is her “power” or in your case “authority” (but then I didn’t initiate that argument) but NEITHER does it say that a hat, veil or bonnet is her “power” or “authority.” You are trying to connect something that is not there. But I on the other hand can prove scripturally that they are referring to hair.
Also Paul was not saying that a woman's head ought to be covered under two exclusive conditions like praying or prophesying. The evidence shows that Paul was simply offering two examples. That is why we read only the word "praying" in verse 13. Also recall that the man ought not to be covered when praying or prophesying, So, wouldn't the idea of exclusivity also apply to him? But Paul mentions that men ought to be “uncovered” because he is the image and glory of God? So it isn't when he prays and prophesies that his head should be uncovered, his head should always be uncovered. Now if a woman’s head ought to covered in long hair then it is logical to understand that the man's head should NOT be covered in long hair, since men’s hair is supposed to be short (not to be misunderstood as baldness). Therefore to be covered means to be covered in long hair and to be uncovered means to have short hair. The idea that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying doesn't make sense with the surrounding verses. But if they were referring to long hair then the other verses start to make much more sense.
A perfect example is verse 13 when Paul asks us to make a judgment. Based on what? Observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil is missing? Are we to assume that Paul expected the average person to have instilled within them the idea that a foreign object is missing from a woman? Why would the average person EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head, by mere observation. 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. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then we can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. I think I can say with some assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a woman with short hair especially if we are looking at their backs to confirm whether the person was male or female. Ergo a NATURAL reaction.
Then there is verse that says: “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.” Which only makes sense if a woman “uncovered” means a woman with short hair since it would be closer to someone shaven. But what is the alternative? that they are saying that a woman without a veil or hat EVEN if she has LONG would be likened as someone shaved? That would be odd.
Oh it gets better. The next verse says: 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.
So (according to those who promote veils or hats) a woman who does not wear a veil or hat should be shorn (same word used to sheer sheep implying leaving a stubble). So her nice long hair must be cut down to the stubble if she doesn’t wear a veil? But if uncovered means to have short hair (like a man) then at least there isn’t a drastic leap to have it cut down to a stubble (aka shorn) or shaved.
So should we put aside the facts that “long hair” is written twice the words shorn and shaven also written twice for a total of six times in this passage. Are we supposed to be overfocused on one or two words? Shouldn’t context matter? I think I made my case.
@@robertmiller812
thanks for your reply.
"I think I made my case" is your opinion, or understanding of the text.
What was common then is not common now in may respects. It is easy for us to weigh up Scritpure accdording to what our experience has been.
Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether a woman has short hair or long hair, they are free to have long or short hair.
But If I am looking at what Paul says about the length of hair being her glory, then it seems reasonable if we are going to submit ourselves to the instruction of the Word of God, then a woman ought to consider this for herself.
The opposite if true for a man - short hair.
The use of words is important.
God's tho7ughts are known by His words - inspired to be written by the Holy Ghost.
If another word is used in a given text, then it is appropriate to inspect that word and the meaning thereof.
Paul IS speaking about authority in this passage. In fact MUCH of his writing is based on his apostolic authority - which was given him by the Lord.
Jesus said before He ascended - ALL AUTHORITY is given to Me both in Heaven and on earth - GO YOU THEREFORE.
So Paul went and taught and preached exactly what the Lord Jesus gave him personally.
Authority is important and word usage is important.
Paul makes it clear that concerning a man there is a difference in his 'headship' to the woman. There is a difference to the manner in which the head of either the woman or tha man needs to be treated - WHEN and only when PRAYING OR PROPHESYING.
It is only addressed in respect to this all important spiritual activity BEFORE GOD.
In the end, it must be a matter of conscience - not a matter of YOU MUST DO this.
If one is of the view that hair is the ONLY covering a believing woman needs to concern herself with, then Paul would have used the same Greek word in every case where it is implied or meant. But he uses another word.
If the issue is only about hair being the covering - short for a man or long for a woman, then the phrase - Men ought NOT to have their head covered when in prayer of prophesying, this would mean that he must remove his hair while doing so otherwise he is dishonouring his head. But if he has any hair on his head then he is covered on his head unless he is bald.
I put it to you that honouring or dishonouring his or her head must be seen in Paul's initial opening statement.
THE HEAD of every man is Christ.
Christ is his covering.
How can long hair on a man dishonour his physical head?
If he covers his head (not with hair) but with a cloth of somekind while praying or prophesying, then he is dishonouring Jesus.
The head of the womn is man.
How can long hair or short hair on a woman dishonour her physical head?
If she does NOT have something down over her head other than hair, she is dishonouring her husband. Because a man or, a husband is her head - her covering
If this is not so, then the opening statement of Paul is insignificant to the following discussion he makes.
If the "HEAD" is only about the woman's head or the man's head, it doesn't make sense
BUT spiritual headship IS NOT insignificant.
It is critical.
Spiritual headship is all about authority; supreme, or delegated.
Blessings in Jesus
@@ianmcdonald8648 Thanks for your reply. It has a bit of unnecessary information which I will point out but in a sense, I think you are very close to getting the whole picture. First, I will agree that “What was common then is not common now” and that it is easy to “…weigh up Scritpure accdording to what our experience has been.” Which is why it is important that we simply read the Scriptures as is and not as what we want them to appear to be. Now you mentioned that to you personally “…it doesn't matter … whether a woman has short hair or long hair, they are free to have long or short hair.” And that if Paul is mentioning length of hair and that being the woman’s glory that it would be reasonable to submit ourselves to the instruction of the Word of God and that the same goes for men regarding keeping their hair short. So far we are on the same page completely.
We are also in agreement to the importance of God’s word, which are inspired, that we should inspect each word and that Paul is speaking about authority with apostolic authority given by God, That Jesus gave authority to the disciples and that there is a difference in his 'headship' from the man to the woman that all of which really goes without saying.
But then you said…..”There is a difference to the manner in which the head of either the woman or tha man needs to be treated - WHEN and only when PRAYING OR PROPHESYING. It is only addressed in respect to this all important spiritual activity BEFORE GOD.”
Here is where I disagree. You are adding the words “when and ONLY when” regarding praying or prophesying. Paul did not say these words. Paul was not giving two conditions here, he was simply giving two examples. Take note that these extra words were made to convey your interpretation that Paul is making an exclusive statement, when the surrounding verses do not adhere to this. You will note that he refers to “praying” in verse 13 and not prophesying. This should be taken as a clue.
Another is that a man ought not to cover while praying or prophesying, but then we read that men ought not to cover because of the creation order, then another reason is that men are the image and glory of God. But these last two reasons appear that a man shouldn’t be covered at any time. The main problem is that some think that Paul was giving conditions when in fact he was giving a couple of examples.
Watch how some people would likely be disgruntled if we were to put this idea of two conditions to the test……….
IF there were really “ONLY” two then it stands to reason that a woman CAN perform ANY OTHER act WITHOUT a covering and that the same goes for men WITH a covering. (Most people tend to be flabbergasted when confronted with this simple logic)
So, according to the two exclusive conditions theory a woman CAN wear a covering while speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, or any other miracle. Or how about this, since the conditions do not forbid singing then a woman CAN wear a covering while singing.
But for some that might clash with the belief that a woman should be covered during some kind of worship service or moment. But we must stick to the “when and only when” theory, right?
I have yet to hear a veil promoter who I would think would stick to their “when and only when” theory say yes that is true. Most try to find a loophole in this logic and suddenly add more “conditions” which nullifies their own belief.
No one asks themselves why would Paul be concerned with just two instances? Why would he exclude one in verse 13? Why say men can’t be covered under two conditions then go on about other things why they shouldn’t be covered. Sir, I am giving you hard evidence why the verses cannot be referring to veils or hats and you should take note because otherwise you will be believing in someone’s interpretation simply because they did not think through the implications or consider the context or surrounding verses.
You then stated that “In the end, it must be a matter of conscience - not a matter of YOU MUST DO this.” Not sure how to answer this as people are free to make decisions whether they be wrong or right. But I think it is evident that Paul is saying they should stick to the natural order of things and that being covered (covered in long hair) for women and short hair for men. Both parties should obey otherwise it dishonors the head and that it brings forth shame according to Paul. And note how this fits perfectly in the world today when women have a very manly haircut and when men have very effeminate looking hair. As children we know something to be off when seeing others not following the natural order God set up.
To say that Paul would have used the same Greek word in every case where it is implied or meant, is not really proof of anything. Paul was free to use any words to chose and like using the words perbolaiou or katakalupto. Neither word gives any credence to a foreign object. Both easily fits into the properties of hair. Please note the following excerpt
“Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around” (perbolaiou). In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the examples first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai.’ - Bernie Parsons
Since I already stated that Paul mentioned praying and prophesying as examples and not conditions, therefore the idea of removing a man’s hair while doing so cannot apply. Basically, Paul was saying that it simply looks even worse if he were praying or prophesying being covered in long hair. So, if he were doing something else holy or godly he would still look bad if he were covered in long hair.
As far as dishonoring the head one can make the argument that Paul was either referring to the authorities or actual heads. In either case I see no problem in understanding if the man having long hair would dishonor Jesus since he is the head of man or that the man having long hair dishonors his own head as he would be the one dishonoring himself walking around with hair like a woman. Not sure how you cannot see this.
Some like to combine the dishonoring the head and shame sections as they are both negative consequences with some similarities. “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man has long hair, it is a shame unto him?” Shame unto whom? Unto HIM. But that’s an argument for another time.
Then you want to add the word “CLOTH” “If he covers his head (not with hair) but with a cloth of some kind while praying or prophesying, then he is dishonoring Jesus.” Saying this doesn’t make it true. There is NO word like CLOTH” and like I said it meant covered in long hair as verse 15 clearly defines.
I agree that the head of the woman is man. But to question “How can long hair or short hair on a woman dishonour her physical head?” is not hard to understand if head means herself. But that is another argument, but I lean more toward that the idea that I think you do also that there are two types of heads being referred to here. One with authority and the other a physical head.
You stated “…If she does NOT have something down over her head other than hair, she is dishonoring her husband. Because a man or, a husband is her head - her covering…”
You are clearly stating that if she does not have something down over her head (her physical head) then she would be dishonoring her other HEAD the husband or man” (Note it doesn’t say the word “husband” this refers to all men and women not wives and husbands.)
This is the verse in question:
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. KJV
So you know that the word “head” (though written twice) are not referring to the same thing since you are arguing that the woman must wear something on her head and that her head is a man.
Therefore I (like yourself) believe that there are two types of heads here and do not believe as you are painting that I believe that the "HEAD" is ONLY about the woman's head or the man's head. Therefore there is no argument here in this respect. But as for others mentioned there is more than enough evidence that Paul was referring to the covering as long hair and uncovered as short hair. Blessings in Jesus, also.
Odes chapter 1 -3
The angels apoken of are the same angels spoken of in genesis 6. Fallen angels who took wives and created nephilim. Women must cover their head....because of the angels. Not the good ones. ;)
The reference in chapter 6 has to do with making judgments about ordinary matters. If we are to judge angels, then surely we (including women) can make decisions in ordinary matters.
Sir, please Screen the explanation
Corinth was a melting pot of cultures. - God's purpose is to use the church to display His infinite wisdom to the powers in the spiritual realm.
Paul gives many reasons for head covering that transcend cultural limitations.
Who's glory should be seen? God's glory!
This is what the verse means! In this chapter, Paul gives direction regarding the headship arrangement. A Christian woman should wear a head covering when she’s praying or prophesying in the congregation. It is “a sign of authority,” a visible proof even to the angels that the woman acknowledges the role of leadership that God has assigned to appointed men in the congregation. Wearing a head covering under certain circumstances shows that a woman willingly submits to congregation authority.
MY Opinion: The head covering used by a woman is 1st: for her honor. & 2nd: A symbol of authority = A way of telling Angels, (or concealing from them a womans beauty), that she would/could not be taken as a wife, for it had happened very early on in Genesis. References: Genesis 6:1-4, 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6, Book of Enoch chapters 6+7. I've heard this is also is the belief in Islam (to conceal womens beauty from Angels), but I am not able to find it in the Quran, nor am I qualified to speak on the Islamic faith.
finally! something that makes sense. I don't understand why others are talkig about giants???
Its sounds like he is tapdancing around the real meaning. My understanding was because of the fallen ones who fell because they slept with human woman.
I suppose that the first step to get a good sense of what Genesis 6 refers to is to start on what, at least I think, is the best version which would be the KJ Bible. If you permit me I would like to quote from here the pertinent verse on this subject.
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
If one were to just concentrate on a couple of words within the verses one could mistake Giants to mean tall men. Moreso when one tries to add the idea that the Sons of God to mean angels and that there was some hybrid of men and angels that had caused tall men to be born aka giants. But the surrounding verses give a different conclusion to this idea.
Genesis 6 is talking about men not angels. It doesn’t say angels. You are accepting the false idea that angels can have relations with women. If you think that the sons of God were angels then you are not considering Hebrews 1 which states:
For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father " ? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son" ? Meaning he never said that any of the angels were his sons so that kills your theory.
As for the verses in Genesis 6 it states in the first verse that MEN began to multiply and that they had fair-looking daughters in verse two, of which were noticed by the sons of God. Given that believers or followers of God are also described as sons we can likely assume that they are referring to those who chose to follow God. Another clue is that they took from these women, WIVES. So let’s paint a picture for a moment if they were angels. To take someone to wife must mean that they LIVED in a matrimonial household. If it were a one-night stand I think it would have said so. Therefore, are we to imagine that certain angels with the powers they possess married human women who then had to plow the field, tend the animals, raise the children, etc? Sounds very unlikely. Verse 3 already shows something of God’s displeasure limiting their time on earth and that his spirit won’t always strive with man it could be because the sons of God should have chosen from their own rank or group as opposed to those who are the daughters of men. But that of course is debatable. Verse 4 is where we read about giants but if we read the rest of the verse it keeps describing these men as those who “BECAME mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Meaning it took time for them to become legends or mighty or renowned. Since we all know that we can use the words to describe someone as renowned or great by using the word “giant” (e.g. “he was a giant among men”) it would seem to fit perfectly with the rest of the words making this same description. God continues to reveal his displeasure in that men are wicked all the time in verse 5 and states he repented making man in verses 6 and 7.
So it would seem God was unhappy with MEN when they were choosing their wives and after more men were born from this union. But if there were male angels taking women as wives then shouldn’t they and only the women be punished and not all men? Therefore the logical conclusion is that they are referring to certain men regarded as the sons of God and that the word giants can and does have another meaning.
@robertmiller812 as detailed as your analysis is, you still are over thinking the interpretation. Or honestly it just sounds like you where taught a certain religious way and refuse to deviate from it. It doesn't make sense thar God is speaking about man. Because it is not wrong for man to be with women. There is a significance to that event. It's a little naive to think its just talking about men displeasing God because they chose women. We know there where giants in those days. So its not illogical to think when it talks about giants that is what is meant. Goliath among others are mentioned. So why then is it farfetched to believe angels slept with woman and gave birth to giants? And also doesn't sons of God translate to fallen ones?
@@godhandninja I wasn’t taught anything in a certain religious way. It is a simple and unbiased analysis of the passage in question along with the pertinent verses that directly relate to the topic of angels.
I never said that it was wrong to be with a woman. What you seem to be overlooking is that the sons of God are those who sided with God (just like we can read in other passages that men can be the adopted sons of God) and those that are the daughters of men are those who sided with man and NOT God. That is the reason for God’s displeasure that instead of choosing the women within the group that sided with God they chose women outside their group. Read it again but look at it logically. Action and reaction.
“…the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man,…”
God’s godly men chose women from a group they shouldn’t have simply because some of them were good looking (ACTION). Immediately after that God was displeased and spoke against MAN, not angels… MAN. (This is the REACTION).
I don’t understand why you are unable to recognize this? It’s as if you were intentionally blinded to understand.
It is irrelevant if there were giants back in the day what matters is that one does not follow these fairy tales.
You say that just because that men can grow very tall that it shouldn’t be farfetched to believe angels slept with woman and gave birth to giants. That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life. Of course, it is farfetched because one is just men being tall naturally and the other is about sexual relations between two different entities. The two are no where near relatable.
Men being very tall does not require copulation of angels with women. Are you going to say that the famous Robert Wadlow was the product of such a union? No, of course not therefore giant men do not require angels to be involved. Please reread the passage with the knowledge that there were godly men and women from ungodly men and may I suggest that it be from the King James bible.
In Genesis 6 some of the fallen angels took human women and lay with them and they gave birth to hybrid giants. I know some think 🤔 this has some reference to this.
No it doesn't.
Why is head covered… he should remove his cap when studying the Word.
Why would you want him to do that? There is no biblical basis for a man to read the word of God with or without a hat. You know we can't just make up doctrines, right?
LOL 🤣 Boy I hope you are joking.
I think he is a little off, this is one of the many many hints back to Gen 6
A little? He is off the rails completely imagine the idea that women can incite the angels. He is making things up as he speaks.
Awesome 👏🏼
Am so sad about your thought brother , heavenly beings are our brothers also and we not gonna cause any trouble to them by any means by saying such you doubting their character. Please Dont.
What 1 Corinthians 11:10 saying is
Simply because Angels are also Men, Men and woman on earth must not break the order when coming in presence of Lord (Praying) coz if men wear head covering he will disgrace his Head ( Christ ) as well as fellow angels because they also must cover their head coz of you ? Ofcorse not.
Revelation 22:9
But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!”
Same with woman if she wont wear covering she will not just disgrace her man but also Angels in Heaven who are our fellow brothers in Heaven. So if one person whether its a man or woman doesn't follow the order will disgrace the rest of the fellow servants of the Lord thats why its says because of the Angels nothing else. Holy angels are our brothers and who care for our well being so dont doubt their character.
God Bless You all
May God bless you brother........but you did not answer the question.......simple question but very very complicated answer.....it goes round and round..............so please answer the question does a woman need to cover her hair while praying ....simply yes or no.......and ..if she does not cover her hair ......... what will happen to her and the angels.thank you.......
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.)
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.
-excerpt John 12
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
My thoughts: post length 7 minutes
Reply for post if desired. It includes scriptures and
commentary.
I can answer that easily. A woman does not need to cover her hair. It says to cover her head meaning cover it with long hair. So no to a foreign object but yes to long hair. Lastly, if she doesn't cover her head with a foreign object nothing will happen to her, but if she maintains short hair we can only assume that the angels may testify as to her disobedience. Aside from this she may get some side-eye looks since it doesn't seem natural.
Brother please remove your Cap while reading the Bible and praying. It dishonours God. It in the Bible
🤣 LOL I hope you are joking because that is pretty funny. As if one has to take off a hat to READ the Scriptures. Good one.
Why would we imitate any man other than Yeshua? Why do we explain away Paul? He was just a man like any other man. Imitate Yeshua only!
Well............Paul did say imitate me as I imitate Christ. Or was Paul an imposter?
@@penttimuhli9442 I believe he may have been deceived himself.
@@TheShutterbug1968 So not all scripture is the inspiried Word of God?
@@penttimuhli9442 seek and you will find, ask and it will be given. Don’t ask me, ask God.
Jer 17:5-10
@@TheShutterbug1968 Is it possible for God to tell me that the Apostle Paul wasn't decieved??
And all the wrong topics should be on one one only 4 horseman of the apocalypse so many twist and turns no wonder people don’t listen any more
HEAD COVERING IN BIBLE.
1 CORINTHIANS
CHAPTER 11
VERSE 5 TO 6
VERSE 5 : " BUT EVERY WOMAN WHO PRAYS OR PROPHESIED WITH HER HEAD UNCOVERED DISHONORS HER HEAD _ IT IS THE SAME AS HAVING HER HEAD SHAVED .'
VERSE 6 : " FOR IF A WOMAN DOES NOT COVER HER HEAD , SHE MIGHT AS WELL HAVE HER HAIR CUT OFF , BUT IF IT IS A DISGRACE FOR A WOMAN TO HAVE HER HAIR CUT OFF OR HER HEAD SHAVED , THEN SHE SHOULD COVER HER HEAD .'
My muslim friend, you didn't read the whole chapter. This is a complex issue.
1 cor 11:2-16 is one of the hardest parts in the bible to understand. You can't just quote a bit and use it as an islamic dawah tool without explaining context.
1 Corinthians 11:15 says: But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her, for her hair is given to her for a covering.
That changes things around now doesn't it?
@@marek2656 nope
I am not a muslim, however, it doesnt make sense, that Paul talks about a womans need for headcovering so long and then says "by the way, its actually her hair". The church fathers also did not interpret it as hair. The passage "if a woman doesnt want to cover herself (doesnt want to have long hair) should also get shorn" wouldnt make any sense at all. The whole culture thing is also not an issue for the church fathers, they infact mention reasons as "the angels" or "creation".
@@godfreyegbon22 I agree. A woman should cover her head when she prays and/or prophecies (teaches). If it was hair, then how can you put your hair on when you pray and or/prophecy and then take it off when you don't! Utter foolishness.
Cultural context? There is none. To assume that women did this only in Corinth is to miss the greater principal and revelation. Of course, if you read verses 14-16 you see that ALL the churches practiced this and you also see that it is a shame for man to wear long hair. To inconvenient for your belief system? OK- just make it a cultural practice. False teaching.This is exactly the mistake that all denominational pastors/ believers make...they assume that the early church was in some way living for God according to social mores and practices. False. This passage in particular is a revelation about submission, angelic interaction and the original fall. Unfortunately, the lifestyle of the Apostolic church is just too far of a stretch for most. Which is why the hermeneutical error employed here works so well...even though it is patently false.
Ha ha ha, wrong, 1 Corinthians 11: 3 Christ is the head of man. How does man show that? The man keeps his head uncovered. Man is the head of the household, the head of his wife. How does the woman show that her husband is the head? She covers her head. Paul appeals to Genesis and creation. Does not sound like it was culture. Was culture having the man have his head uncovered???? When did Paul ever need to adjust scripture due to culture???
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
If thought and said everything your saying when I was 12
You started out good on the topic of the angels, but then you started to promote the traditional philosophy of polytheism in disguise. This evil mystery of the trinity. The Father of Jesus is the one true God Almighty and Jesus is a man (John 8:40)
Then you are really not going to like 1 John 5:7 LOL
The Roman men of occupied Corinth dishonoured their head which is Christ by mixing pagan practices like head covers while praying or convening....Roman women had also pagan head covers as was customary to prove that they were married in the public sphere so that other men wouldn't persue them,they were also not aloud to teach or pray to the Roman sun god without their husbands present..........Paul was using this as an illustration of don't cheat on Jesus with your Satanic head covers...Jesus replaces your head covering and Jesus through the man replaces his wifes head covering...simple
Where does it say Jesus replaces your head covering?
Within the religious customs of the Romans at Pauls time ...The "elite" Roman men had religious hoods on their Togas called the {Birrus}.They would pull this hood over their head when praying or preforming a sacrifice to their sun god by Roman law...When Paul preached the gospel to these Roman gentiles they started to convert to Christ through the Holy Spirit..but out of their ignorance they started to pray to Christ with their head covered which was idolatry...Roman women also had a head covering called the {Palla} but this head covering was for married Roman women and they had to wear this head covering to honour their husbands when they went out in public....Paul was basically saying that Christ is the head of the " new Roman Christian man" and if you pray to Jesus like you used to pray to your old sun god you dishonour Christ...just like in principle if your wives didn't wear there head coverings they would dishonour you and your marriage....Paul was using their own customs to illustrate that they needed to purge all Roman sun god worship out of their lives to truly be alive in Christ.
Jeremiah 29 11 is awful
Brother please remove your cap while you read Bible
@@deepakthorat9873 it’s out of context