I love Pastor Joel for holding the line on headcoverings even though its not cool. I think the breakdown of male leadership is one of the biggest and most foundational issues to our problems in the family and church and actually the nation
The Corinthian headcovering issue cannot be solved by reference to scripture because it’s based in popular science of the 1st century and Enochic legend. Sola Scriptura is a dead letter and alien to the mind of Christianity.
It is not a modern tradition to cover head. It was a tradition to do so in Greek culture which Paul was addressing. His message was: don't stumble your brother by uncovering your head. Covering your head doesn't stumble anyone in our culture, so the message isn't applicable to us. People who cover their head are burdening themselves with artificial cultural accessories, and away from the freedom we have in God's creation.
I wear a head covering and am happy to obey scripture. Considering the world we live in I wouldn’t want to be without the protection it provides. Take your time to find a style that fits your dressing preferences and enjoy it!
That is fine, but based on 1 Corinthians 11, I would say head coverings are only required during prayer or at Church. That being said, more Godly women need to take up wearing a head covering in Church
Yes! I have been binge watching your videos, and I am so glad that you are for headcovering! The more I study it, the more I realize how much people against the practice have to jump through hoops and ignore all but 1 or 2 poorly interpreted texts so that they can please modern culture.
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
@@8784-l3b did you know that the greek word for 'covering' in 1 Corinthians 11:15 is different than every other Greek word for 'covering' in that passage? The scribes did not help us in translating. I am not familiar with YLT, but that verse does not line up with other popular versions. As for the 'judge for yourselves' through the end of the section, I cannot help but read it as Paul is saying 'as an apostle, I have told you to cover your heads (or uncover for men), I have given you several reasons (v3-10, 14-15), all churches have covered women (v2, 16b), and now it is up to you to judge if what I say is true. I will entertain arguments about it (v16)'
@@WhatsTheFruit I suggest FA-ky7wk post 7 days ago if you are only going to look at Corinthians. My thoughts are next. They are mostly outside of Corinthians. Scripture regarding Jesus in this matter should be enough, but never seem to be.
@@WhatsTheFruit Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. -NASB version If the above scripture means a turban, for example, why would God require the priests to wear turbans? Paul certainly would have known about this and maybe seen it. You shall speak to all the skillful people whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may serve as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of checkered work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to Me. -excerpt Exodus 28 Jesus prayed with something on His head while on the cross. A crown of thorns. And they dressed Him in purple, and after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; and they began saluting Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!” -excerpt Mark 15 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” And having said this, He died. -excerpt Luke 23 ******************************************* At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we? “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much. -excerpt Luke 7 Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone... -excerpt John 12 ************* It can only mean the hair is the covering, as the NASB states here: Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. ********************************************************* In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her; ... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) ************ No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. Therefore no Old Testament reference available. 1 Corinthians 11 starts with this: ...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you... Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered... So, there was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. There was no time to establish a tradition of a fabric covering. There was no way to "hold firmly to the traditions" because you can't start a 'tradition' in a period of time that is just a few years. ************ If the covering was a physical covering, then hair length is irrelevant. No one would know if the woman had long hair or no hair. ************ Also, if a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before she can communicate with God, that would make the fabric covering an idol. But one could also say it was a talisman I suppose, since a talisman could be an article of clothing. Talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is believed to have spiritual or magical properties. The object will align with your intention for its use. Every time you look at a talisman, your mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes a necessary ritual. ************
@@WhatsTheFruit Just came across a post along these lines: ..did you know that the greek word for 'covering' in 1 Corinthians 11:15 is different than every other Greek word for 'covering' in that passage? I didn't check out the details to see if it is correct or not however. Post is below by someone else. _____________________________________________ 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 these veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around”. In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the condition first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai. The entire context of this discussion about authority and headship, and the hierarchy established by God, includes a discussion of long hair on women and short hair on men. There is never a mention of a piece of cloth. Consider: the veil is a man-made device to cover a God-given, natural state. It is an imitation of what God has already provided. The cloth veil was a common article worn by both men and women of the desert lands. It served a practical purpose in that it protected the head, hair, and face from the relentless hot sun and the blowing sands of the desert. It was not commanded by God, but was a practical invention. As the centuries wore on, it became a custom among certain cultures and religions. God does not bind man-made customs upon His people as immutable law! - Bernie Parsons
My former priest's wife always wears a head covering because of this principle . My current priest's wife always wears a hat in Church but I've never asked her why. My mom knows that she should have a head covering in Church but because she is afraid of what other's would think, she doesn't. I'm glad you're covering this topic...thank you !
@@cosmictreason2242 Don't you believe in the priesthood of all believers ? ( 1 Peter 2:5; Rev. 20:6) Yet not everyone is his own priest. Paul claims to be a priest in Romans 15:15-16. Priest is the English word used for "presbyter" or elder.
@@roddumlauf9241 The issue that`I think that @cosmictreason2242 is trying to convey is if you are following a Catholic style religion that normally has their leaders titled as "priests" that it may be time to move on. Typically certain groups follow similar beliefs like the Catholic religion which has an array of false doctrines, like infant baptism, confession, purgatory, praying to saints instead of God, belief that Mary remained a virgin, idolatry, the belief in following a Pope, the list goes on and on.
@@roddumlauf9241 Everyone who truly follows Jesus is in the priesthood. But you WONT find that anyone called themselves that like in a title. so cosmictreason2242 is correct to say that one should flee from those who misuse the Bible by taking on titles that they no one told them to do.
@@roddumlauf9241 priesthood of ALL believers yes but not taking that and making into a title with rules. This title has been misused for so long that people cannot distinguish been what the Bible states and what man has taken and formed into a profession.
Some have taken issue with the fact that the Greek word used for covering in verse 15 (περιβόλαιον - peribolaion) is a different word than the form of the word used for veiling/covering in verses 5-7 and 13 (κατακαλύπτω - katakalupto), the latter of which means "to cover wholly" or "to veil". Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, John W. Keddie, contended that if simply any hair were the covering Paul was talking about, then verse 6 would read "For if the women have no hair on her head, let her also be shorn", rendering the passage to be nonsensical.
Dear@@KM-zn3lx I am following my convictions. I believe in what is written. I am not judging other sisters for not covering their heads. It is between them and God. I do not say it is salvation issue. I believe in God's ordained order and I submit joyfully. Yes, I grow long hair too. Majority of women is able to do that. If woman is unable to grow long hair due to medical issues then she just doesn't and there's nothing wrong with it. I wish no one judged me for following Scripture and called me legalistic. It is not loving. But the fruit of the Spirit is love (...)Gal 5:22...
@@KM-zn3lx every Christian is obligated to follow God’s laws. Legalism is when a) people tell you to follow man’s laws as if they were God’s b) people tell you that you need to follow God’s law in order to obtain salvation. You are misusing the word
You are so based here, you and AD are like the hope right now for solid biblical teaching. Thanks brother. The teaching isnt alone either, there is extra verses on modesty and adornment (specifically at times r/t women) that support the position and more. Not that anyone cares.
spot on here. AD and this guy seem to be the only ones really holding the line. DW does a good job most of the time, but I started questioning his integrity when it comes to the dispensational stuff and talmud. That and his NETTR or NEOTR, while he consistently states he’s enemies with people on the right to seemingly appease any group of progressives that may be watching his given segments
@@ChrisTisking12256 Well that is why he pushed NEOTR. PS dont fall for it. NETTR is the right way to move the overton window. But these guys have continued to do wonderful for the last year. Top props.
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions for them to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered no one disputes this but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. As I mentioned earlier some will lay claim that they must be referring to a physical 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. Allow me to expand on this if you will because this is very important. If you are going to make the argument to prove your point that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible supposedly claims that women ought to wear a veil based on two conditions, then it is only logical to understand that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one; for example: if the woman is speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should deny this, meaning that the woman should wear their “veil” under other conditions then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. Please note that the belief in women wearing veils for many groups hinges on this “two-condition” argument because if there were actual conditions then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. But keep in mind that it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off. Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” So, there seems to be another reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should he not be covered under any condition because of verse 7? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, we should be asking when they are referring to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV If the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s the case, then to be uncovered would mean to have short hair. If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
Really? That's what you think we really truly need? Head covering is hair according to the Bible so what we need more is people preaching the correct interpretation.
You would have to establish that Corinthian women were wearing a physical covering. Paul concludes his point by saying 1 Corinthians 11:16 For long hair is given to her as a covering.
@@cosmictreason2242 All Version say a hair is her covering. It contrasted a man not having long hair. If it was another word, the translators of different Bible versions would use other words, and not be consistent.
@@theresaread72 Your comment that other translations say hair is given her for a covering... just a few thoughts...I cannot in one you tube comment address you belief about the hair being a woman's only needed covering, nor will I try, but I do want to put out some things to ponder. (take with kindness, I am not an argumentative sort =) Hope you read to the end, it's a bit goofy and long, so sorry .... In verse 14, Paul was saying "doesn't even nature teach you..." By using the word "even" he was adding to his emphasis about the head covering, he was not cancelling out the previous verses. We are blessed to be able to check the Greek easily (and it's fun, too), the word "covering" changes in verse 15 because Paul is talking about nature in verse 14, the fact that God demonstrates this concept of covering even in how she is made. He was telling them that even in nature, God gave her a mantle to go around her body, one that she can enjoy, and, yes, it is a glory to her. He was not saying that she can then flaunt that glory in the presence of God in the assembly of believers (where men and angels are present). The glory of woman (her hair) and the glory of man ( the woman) are both to be covered in God's presence, and this being a visible representation of the spiritual realities of -God's order of headship,- God's order of Creation, -God's order of glory, and that there is significant in some way for the angels as well … (oh yes, as a side note, look up the concept of glory and when it is covered and when not...a very fun study =) Communion and Baptism are also physical symbols of spiritual realties that Paul told us to observe, as well. And we would not consider it odd that they are shown via physical items and actions. The text when referring to man being uncovered and woman being covered are also in verbal form grammatically, they are speaking of the man not doing something specific in his actions, and a woman doing something specific in her actions, when (while, during) praying /prophesying. The English translations do not do this passage justice at all (the consistent use of the same English word when Paul clearly uses two very different Greek words that mean two very different things, is not great), and have caused much confusion in the last 100 years. And funny enough, we are the only two generations that have had such confusion on this issue, as history bears out. The understanding of the Text was not debated, generally, until our grandmas were in their mid 20-30's... A general thought to all us you tube land people: Freedom in Christ allows for difference of opinion in non-salvific issues, for sure. We are not to snub those who cover if we don't or to snub those who don't cover, if we do. We all stand before God alone, to give account to Him and His Word and how we lived by what we understood from it. It will be a judgement about how we lived in the light of His Word that we had, not about whether we are saved or not. God in His Grace is able to keep us, and lead us. I am so glad He is not done with me yet! =) Theresa, You are wonderful. I mean that sincerely =) ( I hate social media sometimes, haha, it does not transmit real fondness and big genuine smiles =) Me and my puppy, who is sleeping at my feet, hope you have an absolutely amazing day =)
I wonder how the brother under the difference between the OT and NT on male wearing head covering? Priest wore hats under the Mosaic Covenant. How would understand allow a woman to have your hair shave but it is improper for a man to have long hair? I wonder he counsels couples on this topic
“and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;” 1 Corinthians 11:15 YLT98
Joel has a Q and A live stream series Monday afternoons called ‘Theology Applied’. I believe this is from the most recent Monday’s post. (But I could be wrong)
Yes!!! Yes absolutely!!!! I looked into this recently and came to the same conclusion! People are way to quick to assume it's simply cultural because that's more comfortable in our culture. And the reason is soo important in that it reflects Christ's headship and glories in God's design and particular roles, that absolutely differ, for men and women.
I support women covering their heads. But a quibble: Paul does not specifically say for the woman to cover her hair or her glory. It says to cover her *head.* (This will result in her covering her hair and her glory, yes, but that isn't what Paul says). Even more technically, it later says the women should "have power" (or authority) on her head; some translations render this "wear a symbol of authority" on her head. I mention this since some Christian sects emphasize the total concealment of the hair, which doesn't seem to be Paul's area of concern. Rather, the main point is that the woman is to wear something on her head, which shows she is properly submissive to God's created order (Chrysostom makes this point). I don't think therefore that the covering is to veil her glory but to add to her glory; in that the glory of woman is to be properly hypotasso (in proper submission to God and man). Her hair is given for a covering by *nature,* she *adds to this* by choice with a veil to demonstrate her *willing* hypotasso to God's order and command (Chrysostom again). Interestingly there is a cultural shift happening now in my area and it is more common for men to wear ball caps to church and to leave them on (I count a dozen or so men each week in my congregation). So it seems *men* need to start hearing again about God's congregational dress code for them too - no hats in the house of prayer, men! One wonders how much of the gender confusion has been allowed to continue via the church capitulating and disobeying something as easy as manifesting our submission to God via His dress code. Headcovering really didn't fall out of use until the 1960's.
Women are required to dress modestly. So a head covering should cover as much of her head as possible. And yes, I agree. Men should not be wearing hats in church. There seems to be a lack of reverence in churches. Both men and woman have become too casual about their appearance.
Great comment. I can hardly add anything to what you have written. We of course are all challenged to choose our words wisely. One thing I would add although I haven't done a word study, is that a woman's hair is "A" glory to her. It is hardly her only glory, how ridiculous.
God bless Pastor Joel, what are your thoughts on women singing in the church as apart of a “worship team“ and women leading in song within the church? If I send a child to school, and the teacher is singing an abc song for the class to sing along to, so that they can learn, the teacher is using authority to teach and lead her mixed audience. Would the same not apply to a woman leading in song? She has authority over the audience as they follow her lead, while teaching the congregation through song. If the dynamics of the church (in general) are to reflect and keep God’s order (a-likened to a marriage), how then would women being on stage/the pulpit in front of the congregation leading them in song, whether it’s as a lead singer or women up on stage singing with a lead (male or female), not reflect authority, leadership, and teaching on their part?
This is a good point. It seems the best practice would be to have a man leading the music team and have the women on that team wear a covering. I think there is an attempt to compromise with egalitarianism and "have the women lead worship," but this has the effect of making worship a feminine domain with the men following the lead of the women - which indeed seems to have occurred in the last few decades (eg, "Jesus is my boyfriend" type songs, or etc).
I am strict on gender roles but I would say in a really small church it's okay to have a woman supply the lead voice for singing just as long as the worship leading is being done by the male pastor. I have been in a situation where I was in charge of the church service and a lady was the person who was actually able to sing😊. She did the singing and I did the speaking. It is preposterous for anybody to say they believe in 1 Timothy 2 about women not exercising authority over men and yet to condone a woman being the worship leader directing the congregation during half of the church service. 1st Corinthians 14:34 "let them subject themselves as the Law also says".
Verses 5 through 7, as well as verse 13, of 1 Corinthians 11 use a form of the Greek word for "veiled", κατακαλύπτω katakalupto; this is contrasted with the Greek word περιβόλαιον peribolaion, which is mentioned in verse 15 of the same chapter, in reference to "something cast around" as with the "hair of a woman … like a mantle cast around". These separate Greek words indicate that there are thus two headcoverings that Paul states are compulsory for Christian women to wear, a cloth veil and her natural hair.
Many people want to quibble over the translation of the words. Why not look at the people who truly understood the language as their mother tongue? How did the early church interpret Paul's words? The answer is that for almost 2000 years all the churches of God followed that ordinance. Suddenly in the last 70 years the churches in the west departed from that ordinance. Strangely they were the only churches to do so. The churches in Asia and Eastern Europe and Africa etc still hold to the ordinance that Paul made clear. However the point is that Paul said that this teaching didn't originate with him rather that he was simply passing on the words of the Lord. In other words the practice of the children of God veiling or uncovering goes all the way back to Jesus.
In 1 Corinthians 11:5-15, Paul is NOT teaching that women are to cover their heads as in using a hat when praying or prophesying, but that they should maintain their hair long ergo covering their heads. Please note that veil promoters will sneak in the words “head coverings” when the Bible doesn’t say it that way. It says to cover the head. But this they do to manipulate the masses because “head coverings” have a strong connotation of it being a separate object. The fact that Paul makes no comment about women having to cover their heads in other contexts does not prove anything especially if Paul is simply trying for men and women to continue the tradition of having the proper hair length. Some have made the argument that the Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 is different from the one he used in 1 Corinthians 11:15 as though it should mean something vital. Here is an excerpt that shows that it does not promote the wearing of a veil or hat. “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.’ The argument that if Paul wanted to say hair is the covering at 1 Corinthians 11:15 in the same sense as he was referring to in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 that all he needed to do was use the corresponding noun, κάλυξ (kalux), instead of περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) is very thin. Especially since we have already established that peribolaion means “throw around” which long hair has the capacity to do. We also noted that the other word katakalupto means “hanging down from the head’ which again hair has the capacity to do. Paul’s decision to use two types of words to describe the capacities of hair does not prove he was referring to two different “coverings.” There is no logical reason to assume that one or both of these Greek words MUST be referring to a cloth or hat or veil. The words needed to prove this idea are just not there. Would have been good to use the exact same word? Sure, but did he have to? No. Also, bringing up the point of using the corrupted Septuagint to show that it does not refer to hair does not help the case given that this book is well-known for having a ton of errors. What this alludes to is that one must be very desperate to find proof or confirmation that they would use anything. The argument that the 'hair as a covering' claim was a modern invention, is not provable. To say that “….promoters would be saying that the earliest Christians, who lived in a world where koine Greek was the lingua franca, didn't understand what Paul wrote…” is actually a tricky and sly move to gain a foothold on the argument. What do I mean? Well, the person who wrote this is saying that since it is ALREADY and OBVIOUSLY a foregone conclusion that the covering is a veil and that the people who don’t believe in this must think that the early Christians who understood Greek couldn’t understand Paul’s writings. No, I think they did as do many other people. If the covering was in fact long hair then I would believe that many of them understood this. The problem is that when veil promoters try to find proof that people believed in their version of the scriptures, they will look for those who they consider “early church fathers” And the question one should ask is who are they referring to? And although some do not mention who they are I have been in conversations when they start including an array of Catholic Scholars, people from sects that follow a ton of bad doctrines. So my response would be, why are you looking to false and religious groups or people that stray from many Bible truths? I don’t need a so-called “early church father” to prove what the Bible says is true, do you? Therefore it is irrelevant if “early church fathers” believed that the covering was a veil, especially when we read how they erred in, the method of salvation, deity of Christ, belief in Church officials, non-biblical church dogmas, hell, water baptism, redemption, grace and more. To say that those promoting the 'hair as a covering' claim need to explain why translations such as the: ASV, ERV NAB, NRSV & RSV render the covering as a veil…. Um, I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but those are the worst translations out there, where WHOLE sections of Mark are taken out. Where verses regarding hell are BLANKED out. When 1st John 5 mentions God being three in one is removed. Where horrible mistranslations are found. Why? because INSTEAD of using the Texus Receptus they use the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus, etc. There are MANY Scholars who have denounced these translations. So it is not about whether a lowly person thinks they are better than those who translated them. There are BOOKS on why these translations are no good, written by people of high educational stature. It is NOT a singular personal opinion. But in order to win an argument they will try guilt or shame or make up nonsense by saying that those who believe hair is the covering really expect them to believe they know more about what the Greek text than the scholars. Rubbish. It is agreed that Paul's admonition was also clearly counter-cultural and was theologically based, not culturally conditioned. But the difference is that Paul was saying that women ought to keep their hair long and men’s short and that it is not based on culture whereas veil promoters will claim he is referring to foreign object that goes on the woman’s head. And when sticking to Scripture is not enough veil promoters tend to make quick jabs by saying that those who don’t believe in their interpretation would be “…either laughed in their face or walk away in disbelief and disgust by those who follow the Greek Orthodox church…” as though this highly religious and knee-deep-in-unfounded-traditions sect is some sort of standard. Now that is laughable. Just google “Greek Orthodox Church” click on images and tell me that they are not steeped in religiosity and paganism. Allow me to apply the ACTUAL logic of the 'hair as a covering' claim to the whole of 1st Corinthians 11:4-15 (KJV) gives: For if the woman be not covered IN LONG HAIR, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered IN LONG HAIR. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head with LONG HAIR, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered (not covered in LONG hair)? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. The POINT is not about any kind of hair like the detractors like to claim but hair that COVERS the head in other words LONG hair that hangs from the head. If a woman's LONG hair is the covering (because LONG hair covers the head obviously) throughout 1 Corinthians 11:5-15 THEN it is also dishonorable for a man to have LONG HAIR covering his head when praying or prophesying, as per 1st Corinthians 11:4 a man should not be “covered” meaning not covered in LONG hair. NOT the idea of having no hair on his head when praying or prophesying as veil promoters try to paint. Detractors love to play word games by inferring that those opposed to their beliefs think that their logic is wrong because it makes it sound as if men’s heads should be bald aka shaved. But if they conveniently leave out the words LONG or SHORT hair which covered and uncovered is referring to then of course the way they paint their theory will sound logical. Finally, when Paul refers to a woman's 'long hair' in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, he is not contrasting its glory with the shamefulness of being shorn that referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:16. He is saying that women ought to be covered in long hair and men should not be covered in long hair. He offers several reasons why which includes the angels, doing something holy LIKE praying or prophesying (but not exclusively), the order of creation which should be obvious that since creation God would have made man with short hair and woman with long hair and note that if it were really important then why is there no mention of a veil for the woman?
Finally, when Paul refers to a woman's 'long hair' in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, he is not contrasting its glory with the shamefulness of being shorn that referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:16. He is saying that women ought to be covered in long hair and men should not be covered in long hair. He offers several reasons why which includes the angels, doing something holy LIKE praying or prophesying (but not exclusively), the order of creation which should be obvious that since creation God would have made man with short hair and woman with long hair and note that if it were really important then why is there no mention of a veil for the woman? Then if that weren’t enough they will downplay the scriptures and claim what you are reading is not what you think you are reading this form of trickery is called gaslighting. They claim that despite what you read in 1 Corinthians 11:15 that LITERALLY say that her long hair is given to her for a περιβόλαιον (peribolaion aka throw around) covering, that what it really means that her long hair is her glory. In other words, don’t believe what you read believe in what they say it means. The insistence that a synthetic man-made object is the covering misrepresents Paul's teaching, makes a tautological mockery of what he wrote, and promotes disobedience. It gives the false idea that God would care about the outward appearance of men and women, when the Bible states the opposite. It is true that this isn't a salvation issue, but there is NOTHING at stake of any heavenly reward for obeying this false doctrine. Veil promoters think they are being obedient to God when in fact they are following someone’s misinterpretation. Remember God said that he does not care about what’s on the outside but what’s on the inside. This mode of thinking will cause people to think that out of the whole Bible that this one little instance that about covering God SUDDENLY cares about headwear. That is preposterous. Women who refuse to cover their heads when praying or prophesying will NOT suffer ANY loss of standing in the next life. But veil promoters think they will. Can you understand how ridiculous this sounds? God cares about a woman wearing a hat? They claim others against them encourage disobedience, when in fact they are the ones doing that.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Just the truth not that you would recognize it. You even falsify God's word to justify your rebellion. Nowhere does Paul say long hair is the covering and you know it, troll.
Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around”. In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the condition first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai. The entire context of this discussion about authority and headship, and the hierarchy established by God, includes a discussion of long hair on women and short hair on men. There is never a mention of a piece of cloth. Consider: the veil is a man-made device to cover a God-given, natural state. It is an imitation of what God has already provided. The cloth veil was a common article worn by both men and women of the desert lands. It served a practical purpose in that it protected the head, hair, and face from the relentless hot sun and the blowing sands of the desert. It was not commanded by God but was a practical invention. As the centuries wore on, it became a custom among certain cultures and religions. God does not bind man-made customs upon His people as immutable law!
My biggest question on this is not addressed. It never is in these discussions and I don't know why. Maybe someone can help. I get the argument of creation/order, and glory, etc. I understand all that. But the head covering text specifically says "when praying and prophesying" women are to wear head coverings (1 Cor 11:4-5). Not generally. And that part is totally ignored. I know Joel believes women should not speak aka teach/preach in church (as do I - 1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 14:34). But I don't understand how one can draw from 1 Tim to talk about order and women's roles with respect to men and teaching to make a point about order and creation, then totally ignore that part of the 1 Cor passage on head coverings. Again, the context of 1 Cor is "when praying and prophesying". So either you have to acknowledge Paul is contradicting himself in saying that women can in fact prophesy/preach/teach in church (after being clear in other letters they can't 1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 14:34) and when they do they should cover their head, or you have to consider he wasn't talking about actual local church assembly. Either way, you have to acknowledge that the context of that the passage is clearly when a women prays or prophesies. So what is the text on head coverings actually saying? Is it saying that when women *teach* and *preach (prophesy)* and *pray* in church they are to cover their heads? It cannot be saying that if you believe that women are not to do so in church (which means that, ironically, if you believe that women are not to pray or prophesy in church, one could argue that it therefore logically follows that this text is talking about everywhere BUT church). Is it talking about public places when a woman proclaims Christ to unbelievers, she is to cover her head? Is it saying that anytime a woman prays, including in her home, she is to wear a head covering, or maybe just in the presence of her husband? What if she is single? What about silent and/or private prayers? And I'll add that in Wuest's Greek translation he notes that in 1 Cor 11 verses 4, 5, and 16 it is implied as a "public assembly" but in verse 17 (when talking about the Lord's Supper), he describes that gathering as a "local assembly". Any help would be appreciated.
I think you make a valid point that should be addressed. I think the main issue to be investigated is if the Bible really states that there were only two conditions a woman ought to pray or prophesy with their head covered. Now I can understand how someone can 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 speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a staunch veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” So, there seems to be another reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should he not be covered under any condition because of verse 7? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14. Therefore in the end the praying and prophesying were not meant to be seen as conditions ESPECIALLY since logic dictates that if other conditions were to be applied then one DOES NOT have to be covered. Paul was merely giving examples.
Prayer and prophesy can be specific,maybe but perhaps it is more of an idiom, referencing spiritual matters in general, and yes, if you read it carefully, there is no specific place/location specified in 1 Cor 11: 2-16, so it stands to reason that Paul was probably refering to a woman's (and a man's) spiritual behavior out in general life, the home, etc... He does not specify the more structured gathering (eclesia) until verse 17, going into the Lord's supper subject. Remember, chapter and verse came later. This is a letter. The first portion of chapter 11 fits in more with the previous few chapters the deal with believers and their interaction with others around them. We as women can pray/prophecy in a ladies Bible study group, a tea time with a friend, a prayer time with our kids, sharing our faith, etc... Paul is saying that we show these essential realities and truths about God and His creation as we interact with His creation. We as women have the more visible aspect of that perhaps, but it is the full picture (man uncovered, woman covered) that shows off God's amazing ways as we live it out in our families and lives. The formal assembly shows this, too, just in a more specific manner, as the men of God lead. Paul is not contradicting himself. He is consistent with all the other passages regarding men and women.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Thanks for the response. I hear what you're saying, but you are making many many assumptions in your argument. Look at how many times you say things like "I think", or "I suspect", "there seems", "we get a sense". That is not convincing. The black and white reading of the text is clearly in the context of praying and prophesying. If your primary argument is that Paul was merely giving an example that is unconvincing. Why, in the only time head coverings are mentioned in the New Testament, would Paul use such a specific example if his intent was to convey a general rule? It simply does not add up.
@@cheryl1625 Thanks for the response. In fact, great response. I am with you in total agreement. Especially regarding the distinction you point out about general life and then changing the setting to the local body in verse 17. The greek text implies exactly this. V 4, 5, and 16 it is implied as a "public assembly" while 17 local church gathering. So I agree with you! And that is precisely why I asked the question...nobody seems to recognize those distinctions or the fact that if Paul was actually saying "when women prophesy" to mean in church, he would be contradicting himself. If he's not addressing this issue as a rule to be followed in church it dismembers the entire argument of head coverings in church. Taken to the logical conclusion it would essentially read as the opposite, that women should wear head coverings everywhere BUT church! Now one could then argue that it applies inside of the church just as outside, but no Christian women wear a head covering outside of church when they are "praying or prophesying" today. It's a non starter. Today, just as you said, it would be applied in ways of showing deference to the man in a God honoring ways that make sense in our culture, just like they did in Paul's time and culture. Nobody seems to pick up on any of this which, again, is why I asked the question. Just as you, I do not believe Paul was contradicting himself and he is being consistent.
@@Ztaylor19 Thanks for your reply. My apologies for making it appear that I was making assumptions. But that does not detract from the fact that the “alternative” would make any more sense. You want to be convinced ok so you say the “black and white reading of the text” must be clearly understood. Here’s one that no one but no one can explain away with the idea of veils or hats. 1st Cor. 11:13 we read that Paul asks us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is Observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered were to mean “to be without a veil”, then one would have to explain in detail 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? There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But given the context the word “UNCOVERED” MUST mean "SHORT HAIR." it MAKES 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 assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a woman with short hair or a man with long hair especially if we are looking at their backs to confirm whether the person was male or female. Ergo a NATURAL reaction. Most veil promoters tend to ignore this verse because it would tear down the idea of veils. You stated: “Why, in the only time head coverings are mentioned in the New Testament, would Paul use such a specific example if his intent was to convey a general rule?” First of all the question you make is called into question because you typed the words “head covering” which can be construed to mean a foreign object that is worn on the head. If that was your intent then I would have to argue that because it doesn’t say that. It actually says “with her head uncovered” “if the woman be not covered” “is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” “her hair is given her for a covering.” It does not say it in the form of a foreign object but that it should simply be covered. And I am SURE that you know that “Hair” falls very well into this category but veil promoters tend to brush this logic off. If you want to discuss what the actual reading states, well then why would Paul start with the supposed discussion of a veil in verse 13, then to go into the wrongness of long hair in men, both of which are clearly referring to simple observation? It makes sense that the topic of hair was continuous in both verses 13 and 14. This should also make you think that this doesn’t add up. Going back to your question. Some people have stated that perhaps some believers were not keeping to hair look based on their gender and of course the creation order as read in chapter 11. I do not see why keeping this so-called rule would be strange even if it were just a “general” one. But based on the way Paul wrote about men keeping their hair short and women long was deemed important (and not so general) based on the reasons he gave like the creation order, because the angels, because the man was the image of God, etc. I don’t see anything wrong in mentioning this especially if some were actually going against the order of nature so to speak, especially since Paul paints a picture of this in verses 4 and 5. it does not mention this. But the point is what the context of the passages keeps pointing towards The fact that the word veil or hat is not there, That it mentions hair and related words like shaven and shorn several times (often ignored), the judgment one can make based on observation that even nature teaches us to know when something doesn’t look right, especially if one combines that with holy practices like praying or prophesying. Therefore trying to force the idea that they are referring to veils just doesn’t add up, either.
In other videos you've stated that you don't require head coverings of women attending worship in your church (I'm glad because I'd love to visit!). An honest question: If you strictly forbid a woman to preach in your church based on Paul's creation argument (I agree there), then should you not also strictly enforce head coverings, if they are likewise grounded in the created order as you assert? I see an inconsistency here. Or should we wait for the book? 🙃
I wouldn’t call it inconsistency; I would say it is a recognition that not every scriptural principle has the same importance. He doesn’t fail to enforce it because he doesn’t really believe it, but because he knows that it is a tertiary matter (and probably low on that list, honestly). I would say women in church leadership is a high second tier issue.
It isn't inconsistent because he makes the decisions about who will preach in his church and he doesn't make the decisions about what his members wear to church.
There aren't tiers of doctrine, just different levels of maturity in believers. Every doctrine becomes what some may call an "essential" after the Holy Spirit starts convicting you on that point.
It's funny how you call out pastor Joel for not requiring women to cover their heads. But you don't call out pastors who don't require women to have long hair in church.
Hi, just found this video. As a woman, I cover my head with a wig, so the only person who sees my hair is my husband, just like Jewish women do. Is that acceptable?
I think you are referring to something covering the hair and not that the hair itself is the covering. But make that clear if you will. I have heard that some people are saying that since men are told to have short hair, that in contrast, the woman's covering is their hair, being kelp long. Also, throughout church history churchmen have kept their hair long, so that is another confusing issue to me.
as far as his title...Was it unique to the corinthian church... the obvious answer when you read the passage is no because it says all the churches do it
@@janeEyreAddict although that was so long I quit. I have short hair and look feminine. I tried to go to a church and was treated horribly by the parishioners. The women wore long skirts, tennis shoes, hair in buns, no makeup. I came in with slacks, makeup and short hair. Needless to say, I didn't go back! I had talked with the pastor via phone and he never mentioned this!
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
God through Paul made it clear that the woman's long hair IS her covering and it wasn't just for praying. Paul was making a point with two examples that a woman praying or prophesying with short hair looks wrong (uncomely KJV) therefore she should keep the tradition of keeping her hair long.
@@matildamaher1505 Seems like you are sure about this, can you supply the part in the Bible where this is mentioned? I would really like to read that. Also what is the basis of your belief that Mary wore a head covering. Was it because you read it in the Bible? saw on paintings? Movies, etc?
The Bible does not teach that. It clearly teaches the opposite as a matter of fact. It teaches that a separate covering is needed. That wouldn’t make any sense for hair to be the covering.
@@jlegassey3 Why do you defy God's words? You said that it "...wouldn’t make any sense for hair to be the covering" Yet the Bible literally states VERBATIM..."But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." 1st Cor. 11:15. This is what happens when you listen to man interpret the Bible instead of READING it and letting God teach you. SMH 🤦♂
@@jlegassey3 ...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. -NASB A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. If a fabric covering is actually required, then all references to hair are totally irrelevant to the subject. It only can make sense if the long hair of a woman is the 'covering'. She should be covered, with her long hair. To have short hair, like a man, means that she is basically bald. Therefore uncovered.
@@jlegassey3 and every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, doth dishonour her own head, for it is one and the same thing with her being shaven, for if a woman is not covered -- then let her be shorn, and if [it is] a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven -- let her be covered;... -YLT OR one might say: and every woman praying or prophesying with very short hair, does dishonor her own head, for it is just like her head was shaved and made bald for if a woman's head is not covered with long hair- then she should get her hair cut very short, but since it's a shame for a woman to have her hair cut very short or to have her head shaved and made bald-she really should have her head covered with long hair.
Well said. I don't know which version people are reading that says or hints to the word "separate" Or why would anyone not be able to read how hair is written 3 times directly and 4 time indirectly (shorn and shaven). It would take a lot of bias to read past these words and act like they don't matter. It makes me sick to see how the enemy has blinded the eyes of so many that they cannot accept verse 15 which literally states that long hair is the covering. 😪
Wait: 1.There are no culturally specific symbols commanded in the NT. 2. The inclusion of the gentiles (you and I) entire point was that culturally specific laws are not required to fulfill God's law. 3. Paul adamantly argued against binding men with culturally specific traditions. ...To just up and add one himself??? Something doesn't square there.
@@carlinbyrd3948 True that it is not culturally specific, but timeless and universal. Which is why it is referring to long hair and short hair. The covering being long hair and to be uncovered means to have short hair. This makes much more sense when saying it is timeless and universal as opposed to those who think they are referring to a foreign object.
The point FA makes much more sense. Something deemed universal cannot have a synthetic tie to it like a hat or veil. For it to be universal it must be natural and common to all in this case long hair on women, ergo the covering the bible refers to.
@@nerychristian First your question assumes certain things that I do not agree with. The passage does not refer to going to a place which many call today a church. Neither should we assume that Paul was referring to a gathering. Just that women ought to cover their heads with long hair. So I do not believe that women ought to have their hair long while ONLY in a church or church gathering. So let’s get that mistake out of the way. Paul, when referencing prayer and prophesying, was giving us a couple of examples not TWO conditions as to when to cover. He never uses the word “only” and refers back to nature and creation when explaining why women ought to cover in long hair and men not to do that (aka have short hair). The context of the passage shows that the covering goes way back BEFORE the concept of churches and during creation when there were no veils or hats. How do explain that away? Paul was merely saying that it looks worse when a woman is uncovered (aka not covered in long hair) WHILE doing something LIKE praying or prophesying.
Should a man wear a head covering? Just as women should cover their head to show they are submitting to their spouse, then men should cover to show they to need to submit to God. If he has chosen Jesus as His Lord, then he should show that commitment by wearing a head covering, just as women show their submission, so should man. The difference is not the head covering but who wears it and when. In Deut. 6:8-9, God tells us to apply the Ten Commandments on our forehead, then, when Jesus tells us to "keep" also His words, we apply the Sermon on the Mount to show our commitment to The Father and The Son. A man should never wear a head covering, in church, if they haven't chosen Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. They are not to submit to any man, company etc.. They should remove their head covering before entering a church etc.. To not wear a head covering simply shows that you have not chosen in whom you shall serve. If a woman is married and the man has not committed to the Lord then she also should not cover, for then she would be usurping the man's authority. A woman should be covering her head, the man in her life. Every child of God should cover with The Father or The Son, or even the Holy Spirit. The scripture shows that all three would be what we should strive for. To keep using different translations is what keeps us going in circles. Choose in whom you shall serve, then stick with it. And remember there is an order with God, man should learn who their God is and then try to be like their Heavenly Father, then women follow their head, the man. woman learn from their spouse or the head of the house. That is why they are to ask questions at home from their head.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions for them to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered no one disputes this but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. As I mentioned earlier some will lay claim that they must be referring to a physical 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. Allow me to expand on this if you will because this is very important. If you are going to make the argument to prove your point that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible supposedly claims that women ought to wear a veil based on two conditions, then it is only logical to understand that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one; for example: if the woman is speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should deny this, meaning that the woman should wear their “veil” under other conditions then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. Please note that the belief in women wearing veils for many groups hinges on this “two-condition” argument because if there were actual conditions then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. But keep in mind that it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off. Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” So, there seems to be another reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should he not be covered under any condition because of verse 7? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, we should be asking when they are referring to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV If the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s the case, then to be uncovered would mean to have short hair. If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
Why are we ignoring the context of the entire passage? 1 Corinthians 11:13 [13] Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? (ESV)
1st Cor. 11:13 we read that Paul asks us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is Observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered were to mean “to be without a veil”, then one would have to explain in detail 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? There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But given the context the word “UNCOVERED” MUST mean "SHORT HAIR." it MAKES 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 assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a woman with short hair or a man with long hair especially if we are looking at their backs to confirm whether the person was male or female. Ergo a NATURAL reaction. Most veil promoters tend to ignore this verse because it would tear down the idea of veils. Also why would Paul start with the supposed discussion of a veil in verse 13, then to go into the wrongness of long hair in men, both of which are clearly referring to simple observation? It makes sense that the topic of hair was continuous in both verses 13 and 14. This should also make you think that this doesn’t add up.
@FA-God-s-Words-Matter so what does the scripture mean about men uncovering? Does it mean when they pray they have to remove their long hair only when praying?
@@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus Sorry for long pause. I have noticed that most head covering promoters misinterpret the beliefs of those who believe that long hair is the covering. In their efforts to show that it doesn’t make sense they will state something like: “If hair were the covering, then men should be shaved bald (aka uncovered) every time they pray.” You’d be surprised at how many times I’ve read this in the comments section of various TH-cam videos. There are several errors here, the first being that no one is saying that to be uncovered means to be shaved. If a woman is to be covered in long hair and a man is NOT to be covered in long hair, then we are not talking about baldness or being shaved it just means that a man should not have long hair or another way to say the same thing is that he should have SHORT hair. So that is mistake number one. Mistake number two is that what Paul was preaching had to do with some action that requires something to be taken off (or put on). Although it is true that Paul was saying that men ought to be uncovered when praying or prophesying but he wasn’t being exclusive he was just giving a couple of examples. The idea is that a believing man should not have long hair (meaning he should be uncovered) while doing anything holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. What? Do you think Paul saying it was ok to be “covered” while preaching, talking in tongues, interpreting tongues, casting out devils, singing to the Lord, worshiping to the Lord, dancing to the Lord, etc. as long as it was not those two exclusive moments? Evidence that he must have been referring to hair is also based on his mentioning of the order of creation between men and women in verses 8 and 9. If Paul is making the effort to include this as a reason why women should be covered, and men uncovered then it must be BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats. It also must be BEFORE any idea of church. Therefore, what else could Paul be talking about if not hair way back in the beginning? It had to have been something that existed since then and had to have been natural like hair.
1 Corinthians 11 has nothing to do with women wearing head coverings in the gathered body; it has nothing to do with the gathered body at all. Paul is talking about authority in marriage and that the woman is always to have a "head covering" (her husband being the "head" that is "covering" her); and the man is also to have a "head covering" (Christ being the "head" that is "covering" him). The woman dishonors her "head" (her husband) when she is not under his "covering" (authority) when she prays or prophesies, and the man dishonors his "head" (Christ) when he is under his wife's "covering" (authority) when he prays or prophesies. This is why Paul referenced Genesis and the creation order of the man and woman. Because they didn't adhere to this truth that Paul was expounding they were cut off from the garden.
As good as this may sound as it has some logic to it but the problems arise when one brings up those who are single. If this is only based on married couples then it is only logical to say that those who are single can be without a "covering." However one wishes to interpret this. Also, the creation order is another issue along with the angels verse therefore the context does not fit that it is referring only to married people. Plus the glaring usage of the words long hair written twice and the words shorn and shaven which is obviously hair related. We cannot just ignore this. It is obviously referring to the order God has made but also it is the reason why men ought to keep their hair short and women long.
@FA As I stated, Paul is talking about covenant relationship; so, yes, that excludes single people and there's no reason why these verses have to be speaking about everyone just because Paul is using metaphorical language with hair as an example of headship. If you are going to claim that these verses are really about believers' lengths of hair and not authority/submission then where does Paul, or any other New Testament writer, give the inspired measurements for proper hair lengths? How does that work with Christianity being composed of many different ethnicities/tribes? Your interpretation lays a stumbling block before brothers and sisters.
@@TheStormbreaker3 With all due respect Paul may be talking about a relationship but the context of the passage does not measure up to a marital one. One does not have to be a major in English or even Greek to see that the KJV translators never once mentioned the words husband or wife. When it comes to the word hair it is not metaphorical. One cannot escape or brush aside the fact that it is written TWICE the words LONG HAIR. If you are trying to convince others that they really don’t mean hair when it says the word hair then why mention the length? Then Paul asks all of us to make a judgment call as to whether it looks right for a woman to pray uncovered (meaning short hair) and in the very next verse he notes that even nature teaches us it looks wrong for a man to have LONG hair. Meaning it is sort of innate. How is this metaphorical? Paul is not being metaphorical when he refers to short hair and long hair as uncovered and covered, initially. Then REPEATS the same idea in verses 13 and 14. So if hair doesn’t mean hair but headship, then the verses would not make sense. Just like when you want to think man or woman in this passage is ONLY referring to married couples. You seem to want to replace words to fit your narrative, which is misleading. It says that the reason for a WOMAN to have a covering is due to the fact that she was the second in the creation and due to the angels, which I assume you must also think must be metaphorical. Also, one does not need to know the proper hair lengths to know the difference between long and short. The Greek word for the covering states “head hanging down” therefore if it hangs from the head it is long if it doesn’t it is short. It is very simple. You can’t expect people to read scripture to then say they don’t mean what you think. Though I certainly agree that there is an issue on authority here but it was mentioned to lead to the hair length issue in that men being the image of God should not wear their hair long and that women being the glory of the man and second in creation should keep their hair long. By claiming most of this passage as being metaphorical you misunderstand the scriptures and in turn may mislead others.
6 Reasons for head covering Because the ordinance of head covering is for certain times (v4-6), demonstrating a removable covering. (v6) It was to be worn during certain times (prayer and prophecy, or worship). This is not possible with hair. A man (men were instructed not to cover their heads) cannot remove his hair then put it back on when praying is done! “If a wife (woman) will not” demonstrates the covering was removable. Because a woman’s hair (length according to the individual) is for her glory. (v15) Part of the purpose of the head covering is to veil this glory, not showcase it. Individual glory is the LAST thing any should want in the Presence of God! Because this creates quite a quandary for women who cannot grow “long hair.” Can they still pray and prophesy in certain settings? Regardless of hair length though, a covering can still be worn. Because of the way verse six would read if we substituted “hair” or “long hair:” “If a wife (woman) will not [have long hair], let her cut her hair short…” Huh? She would already have done that! The whole point of that verse is to show the shame of her not covering. Because it would be very odd if her symbol of authority in the presence of angels (v10) was one that gave her glory (v15), since the biblical testimony of angelic worship is not glory for angels, but angels showing humility and covering themselves. (Isa 6:1-3) Because the Church agreed with the simplicity and power of this teaching for 1950 years, from the time of Apostles (v16) through the mid-Twentieth Century (1950-60s). We only began to disobey these precepts on a large scale when feminism hit the West like a tidal wave.
Spiritual headship was ordained by God in the garden, demonstrated plainly within the very order and way He created, First, Adam from God, ...Second, Eve from Adam. Paul is simply referring to the natural order here which is revealed unto us all in and through the scriptures starting in Genesis, for the sole purpose of establishing the spiritual order God commands to flourish within the family, the church, its assemblies and its government, which God Himself created, and thus Himself established and ordained from the beginning. Yet we must remember, in the beginning, Eve was not created with a piece of cloth on her head, and no where in scripture do we find the instituting of such a law that commands woman to wear cloth on their heads in the Old Covenant, therefore Paul is not seeking to establish a new rule, a new ordinance and or a new law, which teaches all woman to start wearing pieces of cloth on their heads. Paul`s burden is a matter of the heart, which is communicated unto us all throughout the entire Bible. A woman that fears The Lord she shall be praised... A meek and quite spirit is precious in the sight of The Lord... Wives be subject unto your husbands in everything..... Sarah, having such a faith filled heart towards her husband, called him lord, therefore reveals she was doing all things not unto man with eye service, as a man pleaser, no but being moved by The Spirit doing all things unto The Lord. Thus far, I have not been able to find one scripture whereby God says.... A woman must wear a piece of cloth on her head, and then she shall be praised??
@@theprodigal7143 I believe the heart of the matter as to why Paul was led to use the reference to a woman`s hair, is yes to cause all to behold that which is revealed most commonly within nature, whereby the majority of places in the world it is usually a natural cultural tradition for woman to grow their hair longer than the men that surround them in their culture do, and thus it is also an evidence that they themselves do know full well that they have been created for a different function and role than a man, and thus the very fact that most woman do naturally desire to grow their hair longer than men is a common natural expression of their known femininity....but if you travel to some parts of the world you will discover that some places like Africa, many woman can find it very difficult to grow their hair long, say compared to many other parts of the world.... so the question then remains...if you are going to start making rules or laws about how you think woman must grow their hair a certain length, well then one must ask how long?? Can you find a law in the scriptures that says how long a woman`s hair should be?? the answer to that question is no. So why then is Paul referring to hair then at all? Well in the law of God you will discover that an adulterous woman if found unrepentant and guilty of adultery, her husband then had the authority from God to then have her handed over to the civil authorities and the if found guilty she would have all of her hair cut/shaved off... doesn't matter how long it was, it would needs be shaved completely off..... a woman with a shaved head in Israel would then be the outward mark or sign that she shamefully was a guilty, unrepentant unruly, unfaithful adulterous woman whom must not be trusted and therefore avoided by all. But yes, when Paul refers to nature, he is stating that all woman everywhere, do have hair that grows out of their heads and thus by nature a woman is being told by God through nature itself that it is not his design or will to have them have no hair. Then we see all the more clearer within the written law of Israel concerning what is to happen to a woman`s hair if she is unfaithful. She must needs suffer the judgment which is against Gods design, and that is to have her hair removed.
@@theprodigal7143 that wouldn’t make sense with the scripture being that he says 1 Corinthians 11:6 “For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off… “ So if she doesn’t cover her head with hair, she might as well shave off her hair? That’s not there? That position would make no sense within this verse, nor the full passage of the scripture.
@@Juduh I believe the covering Paul is referring to here in this specific verse which you are referring to is not a physical covering, but spiritual. Meaning, Paul is making a declaration concerning the condemnation of all adulterous like rebellious heart conditions, whereby speaking unto all women, he is warning all, that if you begin coming unto God in prayer, with an unrepentant stubborn, rebellious/adulterous like heart condition, yet you think The LORD will answer your request & or complaint.... take heed and know that before God with this unrepentant heart condition, you shall be appearing before Him as one that according unto the written law of God as one who should have your head shaved. Proverbs15:8 "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight." Proverbs 15:29 "The LORD is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous." Proverbs 28:9 "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination." Conclusion: Therefore God has ordained the husband to be Christs under-shepherd over and unto the wife...thus it is written, the husband is the head of the wife..... For the woman to be found praying with her head uncovered is for her to be found praying unto God with an unrepentant rebellious heart condition towards her husband, thus in light of Gods law is viewed by God as none other than an adulterous woman who is walking in rebellion unto none other than Christ Himself. And again... Christ is the head of the man. Therefore for a man to have his head covered, is for a man to be coming unto God in prayer with a heart condition whereby he is not coming in sincere faith and subjection unto Christ alone, therefore such an unrepentant man shall also be viewed by God as "a shame" before him, and yes he himself is walking as an adulterous bride of Christ, whom if not found walking in sincere faith in Christ and repentance towards God shall be judged on that final day of judgment as one whom was pleased to be in subjection unto that spirit of rebellion, and thus was habitually content with having his head covered by that filthy harlot anti-Christ spirit, whom is none other than the ruling head of all the unfaithful insincere confessors, whom are therefore numbered as those whom belong unto that anti-Christ church in the earth, which is described in the book of revelation as none other than "THE HARLOT"....( Revelation 17:5) Thus it is written of such unfaithful adulterous men.... 2 Thessalonians 3:14 "And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ASHAMED." Mark 8:38 "Whosoever therefore shall be ASHAMED of me and of my words in this ADULTEROUS and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ASHAMED, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Jude 1:11-13 " Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves WITHOUT FEAR: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own SHAME; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. And yet a word of exhortation unto all men, whom by grace alone do now seek to walk in sincere repentance and subject faith unto their one and only head , Jesus Christ 1 John 2:28-29 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ASHAMED before him (as an adulterous bride will be) at his coming. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. Romans 10:9-11 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him SHALL NOT BE ASHAMED.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 7… “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
Paul didn't appeal to Creation but nature. It was "natural" or normal for Romans to have short hair. Nature doesn't teach that though. God made men's hair grow long, and the rest is cultural. Paul is explaining the principle (don't be a stumbling block for your brother), he is not inventing a new universal commandment. In short: if you aren't provoking a confusion in the church, by not veiling yourself, then don't burden yourself. If you are, then do as Romans do (did).
@@Juduh Good Question! We go from clear to unclear But if a woman has long hair , it is her glory; for her is given to her as a covering. Paul says hair IS the covering.it’s talking about shaved, shorn let her be covered, and then it says she is given hair as a covering. I don’t think you can be dogmatic about it and say I’m incorrect.
@@theresaread72 If someone says another is incorrect it’s not dogmatic. Maybe I can rephrase, your statement seems to be incorrect based on the contextual evidence of the passage. Here’s why, 1 Corinthians 11:6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. What makes more sense, replacing the word with vail or with hair? If your answer is hair (which would be quite illogical (based on the context)), then wouldn’t that imply that a women with short/shorn hair would need to cover their/her head, meaning she would need to make it shorn, but that would be a contradiction, as the/her hair is already shorn? If Paul meant hair, why then wouldn’t he clearly express that by using the word for hair, but instead he uses the word, that is in relation to veiling, which is physical?
I think I'll stick with RC Sproul's and MacArthur's explaination on 1 Cor 11. If you take this videos understanding then when you go out to witness to people don't wear any shoes........( I actually like this Pastor above).
I’m unfamiliar with MacArthur’s explanation of the text. But as for Sproul’s, I assume you are referring to this: m.th-cam.com/video/fzS_7ZnXR5o/w-d-xo.html am I correct? Joel would seem to be in agreement with this take, as far as it goes. I don’t see how Joel’s exegesis would lead to the rational you describe.
@@cosmictreason2242 Yeah, their hair! Only Mrs is alive. Maybe one time in their lives they did but I have seen his videos and the words came out of his mouth that he does not adhere to coverings as a physical cloth etc.....Vs 15 of that chapter is very clear!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not even close. Read 1 Corinthians 11 for yourself, preferably in a translation like the ASV, CEV, ERV NAB, NLT, NRSV or RSV, any of which make it clearer what kind of covering Paul was talking about.
i read 1 cor 11 many times. the Bible says that every case, situation, everything has to be based on at least TWO witnesses. in 1 cor 11 - not only you have only one witness (and nowhere else is this topic addressed in other passages of the NT) but also this very passage also says that the woman's hair is her covering. you are confused and you do not understand the Bible because you are a bot, a tool, a thing which has no soul and no heart, just a program.@@Berean_with_a_BTh
@@aikozoe6598 That's right. Berean_with_a_BTh does not understand the Bible. He or she rejects and misinforms people about the Bible. If the Bible uses the word tradition he/she will say it is not. I've seen this person's comments elsewhere and will brush aside and devalue the part you mentioned about hair being the covering. In other words he/she wants you to believe what they interpret not what you read.
@marriage4life893 again, you manipulate the text. paul says that they are not contentious in all the churches. and that is a custom, a tradtion. so dont put your own manipulative words into the Scripture. your ungodly behavior and manipulation may be the result of the fact that you are constantly making masonic hand signs... showing that it is the satan who is your master. maybe you are not even a real person but a computer program in deepfake technology, a masonic tool of deception....indeed you are!!! no Bible verses can persuade somebody like that... you simply stick to your agenda...
People are so willing to take the verses out of context in reference to using hair versus a cloth. Do you realize what that does to the rest of your exegesis? Is it so hard to take one thing to heart? Your wickedness, and jezebel spirit is what causes you to be so against the Word of God.
@@lastfirst23163 I was hoping you would prove it was a cloth. But you know what I have noticed to those who believe in the cloth covering? It is that they have no evidence not one word in all of 1 Cor 1-16 does it mention of a cloth. And I think you know it. Unless you are going to use some modernized version of the Bible the KJV makes no reference to a cloth but yet hair is discussed SEVEN times. It flat out states long hair being the covering in verse 15. There is so much evidence that it could not be denied it is hair unless they had a premeditated bias, because it would take a strong bias to believe in a cloth.
@@lastfirst23163 In a way I agree this should not be an issue. Normally I wouldn't care if a woman wishes to wear a head covering or not or if a man does the same. It only becomes an issue (at least to me) when one makes it doctrinal and are promoting it as if a woman does not do it they are doing some kind of sin. (Not saying that you are). But in this I agree.
Um where do you see THAT in the Bible? We want the world to come to JESUS not some man-made denomination that have opposing doctrines from each other. Remember there were NO churches back then so let's stick to scripture and not to what man has created.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter LOL. There were no churches back then? I see plenty of Paul's epistles that are addressed to churches. And even God himself, in the book of Revelation, addresses the 7 churches of Asia.
@@nerychristian That is common misconception but even scholars agree that there were no STRUCTURAL churches at that time. Maybe YEARS after the Bible was finished but not during Paul's time. When you read the word "church" in the Bible you shouldn't allow your current thinking to mix with how it was back then. The church was the group of people who believed in Jesus not a religious place. For example when Paul says "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,." he is not referring to a place like you would say to the First Baptist Church in Kentucky. He is saying that there are a group of people who believe that live in a certain place. Otherwise it doesn't make sense if he meant a place when he says the Church salutes or greets you. A place or thing cannot salute. The BEST evidence is when Paul says "if the church comes together into one place" So yeah there were NO churches back then the way most people view churches TODAY. You need to try to separate your thoughts from that of the Bible and read the surrounding verses to get a better idea of what they are actually referring to. Also keep in mind that they were being persecuted so building up a structural church would be like paining a target to all their enemies. So in another way it doesn't make sense that they would have had structural churches.
I don't believe about wimen being more deceived by doctrine and false teachers. My husband is attending Pentacostal church and I am being convicted it isn't right. Also I left the RCC over discernment of Holy Spirit. You are definitely derogatory on women. I don't have problem with male authority in church only but the discernment thing is way off base. Also you forget aboyt Deborah and the women deacons in the early Christian church
2 Corinthians 11 say men can be deceived like Eve was, Departing from the Simplicity of Christ. If I may I recommend Joe Schimmel at GoodFightMinistries and Blessed Hope Chapel for Biblical teachings. Why RCC is not Biblical. Yes, you are right these men Lord it over Women, something Jesus said not to do to all people. Also, 1 Corinthians 11 is talking about hair, God gave women hair as a covering. Paul actually says it. God Bless
@K M your argument here is not with this pastor, but with the word of God. It is only a generalization, so there will certainly be cases like yours in which specific women are not deceived, but a man is. That does not negate the scripture. Praise God who gives the knowledge of the truth that He saved you out of Catholicism. That wasn’t your wisdom, that was His grace. No, this understanding does not ignore women to whom God gave discernment in the Bible; there is no contradiction there. However there is no record of women holding the office of deacon in the NT church; the word translated deacon can just mean servant, and it is clear from the lists of qualifications that these were men.
@@kaylar3197 Was wondering why it wouldn’t it be wisdom to come out of the Roman Catholic Church. God gives us the word of God so that we can compare and contrast Truth with error. Can’t it be her wisdom and God’s grace. There are no prohibitions in the Bible about deaconess since it is unclear whether it it talking about deaconess or deacon’s wives. Women can serve women better than men can and we are all called to contend earnestly for the Faith once handed down to the saints, and all are called to preach the Gospel. God Bless
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
I love Pastor Joel for holding the line on headcoverings even though its not cool.
I think the breakdown of male leadership is one of the biggest and most foundational issues to our problems in the family and church and actually the nation
I am glad more people are starting to believe the Bible over our modern traditions
Yes even a whole group of Mennonites have left their tradition and have stopped thinking about wearing a veil,
The Corinthian headcovering issue cannot be solved by reference to scripture because it’s based in popular science of the 1st century and Enochic legend. Sola Scriptura is a dead letter and alien to the mind of Christianity.
It is not a modern tradition to cover head. It was a tradition to do so in Greek culture which Paul was addressing. His message was: don't stumble your brother by uncovering your head. Covering your head doesn't stumble anyone in our culture, so the message isn't applicable to us. People who cover their head are burdening themselves with artificial cultural accessories, and away from the freedom we have in God's creation.
Ahh, What a lovely man. Such a sense of humour as well.
But most of all a clear efficient and expansive speaker and teacher. God Bless you.
I wear a head covering and am happy to obey scripture. Considering the world we live in I wouldn’t want to be without the protection it provides.
Take your time to find a style that fits your dressing preferences and enjoy it!
That is fine, but based on 1 Corinthians 11, I would say head coverings are only required during prayer or at Church. That being said, more Godly women need to take up wearing a head covering in Church
I too wear a head covering, when praying, in church or when reading the holy Bible.
But do you understand what ‘covering means in Paul’s context? He thought of women’s hair as a literal reproductive organ. Cope.
@@claesvanoldenphatt9972 Not at all, read the text.
you do not obey the Scripture by wearing the head covering. you obey men's traditions. thats bondage. sad
Yes! I have been binge watching your videos, and I am so glad that you are for headcovering!
The more I study it, the more I realize how much people against the practice have to jump through hoops and ignore all but 1 or 2 poorly interpreted texts so that they can please modern culture.
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her...
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
@@8784-l3b did you know that the greek word for 'covering' in 1 Corinthians 11:15 is different than every other Greek word for 'covering' in that passage? The scribes did not help us in translating.
I am not familiar with YLT, but that verse does not line up with other popular versions.
As for the 'judge for yourselves' through the end of the section, I cannot help but read it as Paul is saying 'as an apostle, I have told you to cover your heads (or uncover for men), I have given you several reasons (v3-10, 14-15), all churches have covered women (v2, 16b), and now it is up to you to judge if what I say is true. I will entertain arguments about it (v16)'
@@WhatsTheFruit
I suggest FA-ky7wk post 7 days ago if you are only
going to look at Corinthians.
My thoughts are next. They are mostly outside
of Corinthians. Scripture regarding Jesus in this
matter should be enough, but never seem to be.
@@WhatsTheFruit
Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
-NASB version
If the above scripture means a turban, for example, why would God require the priests to
wear turbans? Paul certainly would have known about this and maybe seen it.
You shall speak to all the skillful people whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may serve as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of checkered work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to Me.
-excerpt Exodus 28
Jesus prayed with something on His head while on the cross. A crown of thorns.
And they dressed Him in purple, and after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; and they began saluting Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!”
-excerpt Mark 15
And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” And having said this, He died.
-excerpt Luke 23
*******************************************
At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we?
“Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much.
-excerpt Luke 7
Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone...
-excerpt John 12
*************
It can only mean the hair is the covering, as the NASB states here:
Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering.
*********************************************************
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her; ...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
************
No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering.
Therefore no Old Testament reference available.
1 Corinthians 11 starts with this:
...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you...
Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered...
So, there was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. There was no time to establish a tradition of a fabric covering. There was no way to "hold firmly to the traditions" because you can't start a 'tradition' in a period of time that is just a few years.
************
If the covering was a physical covering, then hair length is
irrelevant. No one would know if the woman had long hair
or no hair.
************
Also, if a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before
she can communicate with God, that would make the fabric covering
an idol. But one could also say it was a talisman I suppose, since a
talisman could be an article of clothing.
Talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is
believed to have spiritual or magical properties. The object will align
with your intention for its use. Every time you look at a talisman, your
mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes
a necessary ritual.
************
@@WhatsTheFruit
Just came across a post along these lines:
..did you know that the greek word for 'covering' in 1 Corinthians 11:15 is different than every other Greek word for 'covering' in that passage?
I didn't check out the details to see if it is correct or not however. Post is below by someone else.
_____________________________________________
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 these veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around”. In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the condition first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai.
The entire context of this discussion about authority and headship, and the hierarchy established by God, includes a discussion of long hair on women and short hair on men. There is never a mention of a piece of cloth. Consider: the veil is a man-made device to cover a God-given, natural state. It is an imitation of what God has already provided. The cloth veil was a common article worn by both men and women of the desert lands. It served a practical purpose in that it protected the head, hair, and face from the relentless hot sun and the blowing sands of the desert. It was not commanded by God, but was a practical invention. As the centuries wore on, it became a custom among certain cultures and religions. God does not bind man-made customs upon His people as immutable law!
- Bernie Parsons
A dignified virtue shared between faithful Muslims, Christians and Jews.
My former priest's wife always wears a head covering because of this principle . My current priest's wife always wears a hat in Church but I've never asked her why. My mom knows that she should have a head covering in Church but because she is afraid of what other's would think, she doesn't. I'm glad you're covering this topic...thank you !
Run away from anywhere that calls elders “priests”
@@cosmictreason2242 Don't you believe in the priesthood of all believers ? ( 1 Peter 2:5; Rev. 20:6) Yet not everyone is his own priest. Paul claims to be a priest in Romans 15:15-16. Priest is the English word used for "presbyter" or elder.
@@roddumlauf9241 The issue that`I think that @cosmictreason2242 is trying to convey is if you are following a Catholic style religion that normally has their leaders titled as "priests" that it may be time to move on. Typically certain groups follow similar beliefs like the Catholic religion which has an array of false doctrines, like infant baptism, confession, purgatory, praying to saints instead of God, belief that Mary remained a virgin, idolatry, the belief in following a Pope, the list goes on and on.
@@roddumlauf9241 Everyone who truly follows Jesus is in the priesthood. But you WONT find that anyone called themselves that like in a title. so cosmictreason2242 is correct to say that one should flee from those who misuse the Bible by taking on titles that they no one told them to do.
@@roddumlauf9241 priesthood of ALL believers yes but not taking that and making into a title with rules. This title has been misused for so long that people cannot distinguish been what the Bible states and what man has taken and formed into a profession.
Some have taken issue with the fact that the Greek word used for covering in verse 15 (περιβόλαιον - peribolaion) is a different word than the form of the word used for veiling/covering in verses 5-7 and 13 (κατακαλύπτω - katakalupto), the latter of which means "to cover wholly" or "to veil". Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, John W. Keddie, contended that if simply any hair were the covering Paul was talking about, then verse 6 would read "For if the women have no hair on her head, let her also be shorn", rendering the passage to be nonsensical.
I cover my head since it's in the Bible.
Do you also grow your hair long? If so, what about women who can't? I think you guys are becoming legalistic!
Dear@@KM-zn3lx I am following my convictions. I believe in what is written. I am not judging other sisters for not covering their heads. It is between them and God. I do not say it is salvation issue. I believe in God's ordained order and I submit joyfully. Yes, I grow long hair too. Majority of women is able to do that. If woman is unable to grow long hair due to medical issues then she just doesn't and there's nothing wrong with it. I wish no one judged me for following Scripture and called me legalistic. It is not loving. But the fruit of the Spirit is love (...)Gal 5:22...
@@KM-zn3lx every Christian is obligated to follow God’s laws. Legalism is when a) people tell you to follow man’s laws as if they were God’s b) people tell you that you need to follow God’s law in order to obtain salvation. You are misusing the word
God calls Hair as her covering contrasting the man having short hair. It is translated the same in all Bible translations. It’s not in the Bible.
What about wearing pearls or braiding your hair??
You are so based here, you and AD are like the hope right now for solid biblical teaching. Thanks brother.
The teaching isnt alone either, there is extra verses on modesty and adornment (specifically at times r/t women) that support the position and more. Not that anyone cares.
spot on here.
AD and this guy seem to be the only ones really holding the line. DW does a good job most of the time, but I started questioning his integrity when it comes to the dispensational stuff and talmud. That and his NETTR or NEOTR, while he consistently states he’s enemies with people on the right to seemingly appease any group of progressives that may be watching his given segments
@@ChrisTisking12256 Well that is why he pushed NEOTR. PS dont fall for it. NETTR is the right way to move the overton window.
But these guys have continued to do wonderful for the last year. Top props.
I head cover at church, when praying, and in daily life a lot. Need more men to preach on this.
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her...
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions for them to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered no one disputes this but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
As I mentioned earlier some will lay claim that they must be referring to a physical 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. Allow me to expand on this if you will because this is very important.
If you are going to make the argument to prove your point that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible supposedly claims that women ought to wear a veil based on two conditions, then it is only logical to understand that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one; for example: if the woman is speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should deny this, meaning that the woman should wear their “veil” under other conditions then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
Please note that the belief in women wearing veils for many groups hinges on this “two-condition” argument because if there were actual conditions then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. But keep in mind that it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off. Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this.
Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be another reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should he not be covered under any condition because of verse 7?
Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, we should be asking when they are referring to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered."
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
If the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s the case, then to be uncovered would mean to have short hair. If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
Really? That's what you think we really truly need? Head covering is hair according to the Bible so what we need more is people preaching the correct interpretation.
You can’t read the text and actually think hair is the covering. Read it again.
@@TwentyTwoThirtyThree
Every major translation states that it is:
For her hair is given to her as a covering.
-NASB
You would have to establish that Corinthian women were wearing a physical covering. Paul concludes his point by saying 1 Corinthians 11:16 For long hair is given to her as a covering.
He cover this and more points at length in this video: m.th-cam.com/video/xMCgCDIbWiU/w-d-xo.html
Theresa he uses a different word there. He does not say her hair is sufficient as a covering
@@cosmictreason2242 All Version say a hair is her covering. It contrasted a man not having long hair. If it was another word, the translators of different Bible versions would use other words, and not be consistent.
@@theresaread72 The fact is that there is no substantial proof that Paul was referring to a foreign object. All verses point towards the idea of hair.
@@theresaread72 Your comment that other translations say hair is given her for a covering... just a few thoughts...I cannot in one you tube comment address you belief about the hair being a woman's only needed covering, nor will I try, but I do want to put out some things to ponder. (take with kindness, I am not an argumentative sort =) Hope you read to the end, it's a bit goofy and long, so sorry ....
In verse 14, Paul was saying "doesn't even nature teach you..." By using the word "even" he was adding to his emphasis about the head covering, he was not cancelling out the previous verses. We are blessed to be able to check the Greek easily (and it's fun, too), the word "covering" changes in verse 15 because Paul is talking about nature in verse 14, the fact that God demonstrates this concept of covering even in how she is made. He was telling them that even in nature, God gave her a mantle to go around her body, one that she can enjoy, and, yes, it is a glory to her. He was not saying that she can then flaunt that glory in the presence of God in the assembly of believers (where men and angels are present). The glory of woman (her hair) and the glory of man ( the woman) are both to be covered in God's presence, and this being a visible representation of the spiritual realities of -God's order of headship,- God's order of Creation, -God's order of glory, and that there is significant in some way for the angels as well … (oh yes, as a side note, look up the concept of glory and when it is covered and when not...a very fun study =)
Communion and Baptism are also physical symbols of spiritual realties that Paul told us to observe, as well. And we would not consider it odd that they are shown via physical items and actions. The text when referring to man being uncovered and woman being covered are also in verbal form grammatically, they are speaking of the man not doing something specific in his actions, and a woman doing something specific in her actions, when (while, during) praying /prophesying. The English translations do not do this passage justice at all (the consistent use of the same English word when Paul clearly uses two very different Greek words that mean two very different things, is not great), and have caused much confusion in the last 100 years.
And funny enough, we are the only two generations that have had such confusion on this issue, as history bears out. The understanding of the Text was not debated, generally, until our grandmas were in their mid 20-30's...
A general thought to all us you tube land people:
Freedom in Christ allows for difference of opinion in non-salvific issues, for sure. We are not to snub those who cover if we don't or to snub those who don't cover, if we do. We all stand before God alone, to give account to Him and His Word and how we lived by what we understood from it. It will be a judgement about how we lived in the light of His Word that we had, not about whether we are saved or not. God in His Grace is able to keep us, and lead us. I am so glad He is not done with me yet! =)
Theresa, You are wonderful. I mean that sincerely =) ( I hate social media sometimes, haha, it does not transmit real fondness and big genuine smiles =) Me and my puppy, who is sleeping at my feet, hope you have an absolutely amazing day =)
What book was recommended in the video that explains more about hair covering and angels?
I wonder how the brother under the difference between the OT and NT on male wearing head covering? Priest wore hats under the Mosaic Covenant. How would understand allow a woman to have your hair shave but it is improper for a man to have long hair? I wonder he counsels couples on this topic
You said it yourself. PREISTS wore head coverings UNDER the Mosaic covenant.
“and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;”
1 Corinthians 11:15 YLT98
what full length video is this clip from?
Joel has a Q and A live stream series Monday afternoons called ‘Theology Applied’. I believe this is from the most recent Monday’s post. (But I could be wrong)
Yes!!! Yes absolutely!!!! I looked into this recently and came to the same conclusion! People are way to quick to assume it's simply cultural because that's more comfortable in our culture.
And the reason is soo important in that it reflects Christ's headship and glories in God's design and particular roles, that absolutely differ, for men and women.
I support women covering their heads. But a quibble: Paul does not specifically say for the woman to cover her hair or her glory. It says to cover her *head.* (This will result in her covering her hair and her glory, yes, but that isn't what Paul says). Even more technically, it later says the women should "have power" (or authority) on her head; some translations render this "wear a symbol of authority" on her head.
I mention this since some Christian sects emphasize the total concealment of the hair, which doesn't seem to be Paul's area of concern. Rather, the main point is that the woman is to wear something on her head, which shows she is properly submissive to God's created order (Chrysostom makes this point). I don't think therefore that the covering is to veil her glory but to add to her glory; in that the glory of woman is to be properly hypotasso (in proper submission to God and man). Her hair is given for a covering by *nature,* she *adds to this* by choice with a veil to demonstrate her *willing* hypotasso to God's order and command (Chrysostom again).
Interestingly there is a cultural shift happening now in my area and it is more common for men to wear ball caps to church and to leave them on (I count a dozen or so men each week in my congregation). So it seems *men* need to start hearing again about God's congregational dress code for them too - no hats in the house of prayer, men! One wonders how much of the gender confusion has been allowed to continue via the church capitulating and disobeying something as easy as manifesting our submission to God via His dress code. Headcovering really didn't fall out of use until the 1960's.
Women are required to dress modestly. So a head covering should cover as much of her head as possible. And yes, I agree. Men should not be wearing hats in church. There seems to be a lack of reverence in churches. Both men and woman have become too casual about their appearance.
Great comment. I can hardly add anything to what you have written. We of course are all challenged to choose our words wisely. One thing I would add although I haven't done a word study, is that a woman's hair is "A" glory to her. It is hardly her only glory, how ridiculous.
God bless Pastor Joel, what are your thoughts on women singing in the church as apart of a “worship team“ and women leading in song within the church?
If I send a child to school, and the teacher is singing an abc song for the class to sing along to, so that they can learn, the teacher is using authority to teach and lead her mixed audience. Would the same not apply to a woman leading in song?
She has authority over the audience as they follow her lead, while teaching the congregation through song.
If the dynamics of the church (in general) are to reflect and keep God’s order (a-likened to a marriage), how then would women being on stage/the pulpit in front of the congregation leading them in song, whether it’s as a lead singer or women up on stage singing with a lead (male or female), not reflect authority, leadership, and teaching on their part?
This is a good point. It seems the best practice would be to have a man leading the music team and have the women on that team wear a covering. I think there is an attempt to compromise with egalitarianism and "have the women lead worship," but this has the effect of making worship a feminine domain with the men following the lead of the women - which indeed seems to have occurred in the last few decades (eg, "Jesus is my boyfriend" type songs, or etc).
@@MC-vg6sd i see it fit for women to remain with the congregation while an elder leads the congregation in worship
Its unbiblical.
As Judah said, women participate in corporate worship. They are not to lead it. And get your kids out of public schools
I am strict on gender roles but I would say in a really small church it's okay to have a woman supply the lead voice for singing just as long as the worship leading is being done by the male pastor. I have been in a situation where I was in charge of the church service and a lady was the person who was actually able to sing😊. She did the singing and I did the speaking.
It is preposterous for anybody to say they believe in 1 Timothy 2 about women not exercising authority over men and yet to condone a woman being the worship leader directing the congregation during half of the church service. 1st Corinthians 14:34 "let them subject themselves as the Law also says".
What was the name of the book? I’m doing a deep dive into 1. Cor 11 and head covering.
Verses 5 through 7, as well as verse 13, of 1 Corinthians 11 use a form of the Greek word for "veiled", κατακαλύπτω katakalupto; this is contrasted with the Greek word περιβόλαιον peribolaion, which is mentioned in verse 15 of the same chapter, in reference to "something cast around" as with the "hair of a woman … like a mantle cast around". These separate Greek words indicate that there are thus two headcoverings that Paul states are compulsory for Christian women to wear, a cloth veil and her natural hair.
Many people want to quibble over the translation of the words. Why not look at the people who truly understood the language as their mother tongue? How did the early church interpret Paul's words? The answer is that for almost 2000 years all the churches of God followed that ordinance. Suddenly in the last 70 years the churches in the west departed from that ordinance. Strangely they were the only churches to do so. The churches in Asia and Eastern Europe and Africa etc still hold to the ordinance that Paul made clear. However the point is that Paul said that this teaching didn't originate with him rather that he was simply passing on the words of the Lord. In other words the practice of the children of God veiling or uncovering goes all the way back to Jesus.
What is the title of the book mentioned on head covering please?
Thank you and well done. Common sense abounds here. Do you lead a congregation of 4? This truth has been rejected for a while now.
It’s actually a rapidly growing church. I think last I heard it was at 100 or so. It was only planted a couple years ago.
In 1 Corinthians 11:5-15, Paul is NOT teaching that women are to cover their heads as in using a hat when praying or prophesying, but that they should maintain their hair long ergo covering their heads. Please note that veil promoters will sneak in the words “head coverings” when the Bible doesn’t say it that way. It says to cover the head. But this they do to manipulate the masses because “head coverings” have a strong connotation of it being a separate object. The fact that Paul makes no comment about women having to cover their heads in other contexts does not prove anything especially if Paul is simply trying for men and women to continue the tradition of having the proper hair length. Some have made the argument that the Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 is different from the one he used in 1 Corinthians 11:15 as though it should mean something vital. Here is an excerpt that shows that it does not promote the wearing of a veil or hat.
“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.’
The argument that if Paul wanted to say hair is the covering at 1 Corinthians 11:15 in the same sense as he was referring to in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 that all he needed to do was use the corresponding noun, κάλυξ (kalux), instead of περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) is very thin. Especially since we have already established that peribolaion means “throw around” which long hair has the capacity to do. We also noted that the other word katakalupto means “hanging down from the head’ which again hair has the capacity to do. Paul’s decision to use two types of words to describe the capacities of hair does not prove he was referring to two different “coverings.” There is no logical reason to assume that one or both of these Greek words MUST be referring to a cloth or hat or veil. The words needed to prove this idea are just not there. Would have been good to use the exact same word? Sure, but did he have to? No.
Also, bringing up the point of using the corrupted Septuagint to show that it does not refer to hair does not help the case given that this book is well-known for having a ton of errors. What this alludes to is that one must be very desperate to find proof or confirmation that they would use anything.
The argument that the 'hair as a covering' claim was a modern invention, is not provable.
To say that “….promoters would be saying that the earliest Christians, who lived in a world where koine Greek was the lingua franca, didn't understand what Paul wrote…” is actually a tricky and sly move to gain a foothold on the argument. What do I mean? Well, the person who wrote this is saying that since it is ALREADY and OBVIOUSLY a foregone conclusion that the covering is a veil and that the people who don’t believe in this must think that the early Christians who understood Greek couldn’t understand Paul’s writings. No, I think they did as do many other people. If the covering was in fact long hair then I would believe that many of them understood this. The problem is that when veil promoters try to find proof that people believed in their version of the scriptures, they will look for those who they consider “early church fathers”
And the question one should ask is who are they referring to? And although some do not mention who they are I have been in conversations when they start including an array of Catholic Scholars, people from sects that follow a ton of bad doctrines. So my response would be, why are you looking to false and religious groups or people that stray from many Bible truths? I don’t need a so-called “early church father” to prove what the Bible says is true, do you?
Therefore it is irrelevant if “early church fathers” believed that the covering was a veil, especially when we read how they erred in, the method of salvation, deity of Christ, belief in Church officials, non-biblical church dogmas, hell, water baptism, redemption, grace and more.
To say that those promoting the 'hair as a covering' claim need to explain why translations such as the: ASV, ERV NAB, NRSV & RSV render the covering as a veil…. Um, I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but those are the worst translations out there, where WHOLE sections of Mark are taken out. Where verses regarding hell are BLANKED out. When 1st John 5 mentions God being three in one is removed. Where horrible mistranslations are found. Why? because INSTEAD of using the Texus Receptus they use the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus, etc.
There are MANY Scholars who have denounced these translations. So it is not about whether a lowly person thinks they are better than those who translated them. There are BOOKS on why these translations are no good, written by people of high educational stature. It is NOT a singular personal opinion. But in order to win an argument they will try guilt or shame or make up nonsense by saying that those who believe hair is the covering really expect them to believe they know more about what the Greek text than the scholars. Rubbish.
It is agreed that Paul's admonition was also clearly counter-cultural and was theologically based, not culturally conditioned. But the difference is that Paul was saying that women ought to keep their hair long and men’s short and that it is not based on culture whereas veil promoters will claim he is referring to foreign object that goes on the woman’s head.
And when sticking to Scripture is not enough veil promoters tend to make quick jabs by saying that those who don’t believe in their interpretation would be “…either laughed in their face or walk away in disbelief and disgust by those who follow the Greek Orthodox church…” as though this highly religious and knee-deep-in-unfounded-traditions sect is some sort of standard. Now that is laughable. Just google “Greek Orthodox Church” click on images and tell me that they are not steeped in religiosity and paganism.
Allow me to apply the ACTUAL logic of the 'hair as a covering' claim to the whole of 1st Corinthians 11:4-15 (KJV) gives:
For if the woman be not covered IN LONG HAIR, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered IN LONG HAIR. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head with LONG HAIR, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered (not covered in LONG hair)? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
The POINT is not about any kind of hair like the detractors like to claim but hair that COVERS the head in other words LONG hair that hangs from the head. If a woman's LONG hair is the covering (because LONG hair covers the head obviously) throughout 1 Corinthians 11:5-15 THEN it is also dishonorable for a man to have LONG HAIR covering his head when praying or prophesying, as per 1st Corinthians 11:4 a man should not be “covered” meaning not covered in LONG hair. NOT the idea of having no hair on his head when praying or prophesying as veil promoters try to paint. Detractors love to play word games by inferring that those opposed to their beliefs think that their logic is wrong because it makes it sound as if men’s heads should be bald aka shaved. But if they conveniently leave out the words LONG or SHORT hair which covered and uncovered is referring to then of course the way they paint their theory will sound logical.
Finally, when Paul refers to a woman's 'long hair' in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, he is not contrasting its glory with the shamefulness of being shorn that referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:16. He is saying that women ought to be covered in long hair and men should not be covered in long hair. He offers several reasons why which includes the angels, doing something holy LIKE praying or prophesying (but not exclusively), the order of creation which should be obvious that since creation God would have made man with short hair and woman with long hair and note that if it were really important then why is there no mention of a veil for the woman?
Finally, when Paul refers to a woman's 'long hair' in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, he is not contrasting its glory with the shamefulness of being shorn that referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:16. He is saying that women ought to be covered in long hair and men should not be covered in long hair. He offers several reasons why which includes the angels, doing something holy LIKE praying or prophesying (but not exclusively), the order of creation which should be obvious that since creation God would have made man with short hair and woman with long hair and note that if it were really important then why is there no mention of a veil for the woman?
Then if that weren’t enough they will downplay the scriptures and claim what you are reading is not what you think you are reading this form of trickery is called gaslighting. They claim that despite what you read in 1 Corinthians 11:15 that LITERALLY say that her long hair is given to her for a περιβόλαιον (peribolaion aka throw around) covering, that what it really means that her long hair is her glory. In other words, don’t believe what you read believe in what they say it means.
The insistence that a synthetic man-made object is the covering misrepresents Paul's teaching, makes a tautological mockery of what he wrote, and promotes disobedience. It gives the false idea that God would care about the outward appearance of men and women, when the Bible states the opposite.
It is true that this isn't a salvation issue, but there is NOTHING at stake of any heavenly reward for obeying this false doctrine. Veil promoters think they are being obedient to God when in fact they are following someone’s misinterpretation. Remember God said that he does not care about what’s on the outside but what’s on the inside. This mode of thinking will cause people to think that out of the whole Bible that this one little instance that about covering God SUDDENLY cares about headwear. That is preposterous.
Women who refuse to cover their heads when praying or prophesying will NOT suffer ANY loss of standing in the next life. But veil promoters think they will. Can you understand how ridiculous this sounds? God cares about a woman wearing a hat? They claim others against them encourage disobedience, when in fact they are the ones doing that.
TROLL
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Nice Christian attitude may God help you.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Just the truth not that you would recognize it. You even falsify God's word to justify your rebellion. Nowhere does Paul say long hair is the covering and you know it, troll.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Clearly verse 15 says long hair is the covering. Great explanation.
Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around”. In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the condition first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai.
The entire context of this discussion about authority and headship, and the hierarchy established by God, includes a discussion of long hair on women and short hair on men. There is never a mention of a piece of cloth. Consider: the veil is a man-made device to cover a God-given, natural state. It is an imitation of what God has already provided. The cloth veil was a common article worn by both men and women of the desert lands. It served a practical purpose in that it protected the head, hair, and face from the relentless hot sun and the blowing sands of the desert. It was not commanded by God but was a practical invention. As the centuries wore on, it became a custom among certain cultures and religions. God does not bind man-made customs upon His people as immutable law!
We have to respect God's house whenever we enters. To show our respect, we by all means dress appropriately and put a cover on our heads.
Why mention "God's house" when there nothing that mentions this in 1 Cor 11:1-16. Read Acts 7:47-48
My biggest question on this is not addressed. It never is in these discussions and I don't know why. Maybe someone can help. I get the argument of creation/order, and glory, etc. I understand all that. But the head covering text specifically says "when praying and prophesying" women are to wear head coverings (1 Cor 11:4-5). Not generally. And that part is totally ignored. I know Joel believes women should not speak aka teach/preach in church (as do I - 1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 14:34). But I don't understand how one can draw from 1 Tim to talk about order and women's roles with respect to men and teaching to make a point about order and creation, then totally ignore that part of the 1 Cor passage on head coverings. Again, the context of 1 Cor is "when praying and prophesying". So either you have to acknowledge Paul is contradicting himself in saying that women can in fact prophesy/preach/teach in church (after being clear in other letters they can't 1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 14:34) and when they do they should cover their head, or you have to consider he wasn't talking about actual local church assembly. Either way, you have to acknowledge that the context of that the passage is clearly when a women prays or prophesies. So what is the text on head coverings actually saying? Is it saying that when women *teach* and *preach (prophesy)* and *pray* in church they are to cover their heads? It cannot be saying that if you believe that women are not to do so in church (which means that, ironically, if you believe that women are not to pray or prophesy in church, one could argue that it therefore logically follows that this text is talking about everywhere BUT church). Is it talking about public places when a woman proclaims Christ to unbelievers, she is to cover her head? Is it saying that anytime a woman prays, including in her home, she is to wear a head covering, or maybe just in the presence of her husband? What if she is single? What about silent and/or private prayers? And I'll add that in Wuest's Greek translation he notes that in 1 Cor 11 verses 4, 5, and 16 it is implied as a "public assembly" but in verse 17 (when talking about the Lord's Supper), he describes that gathering as a "local assembly". Any help would be appreciated.
I think you make a valid point that should be addressed. I think the main issue to be investigated is if the Bible really states that there were only two conditions a woman ought to pray or prophesy with their head covered.
Now I can understand how someone can 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 speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a staunch veil promoter would not go along with this.
Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be another reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should he not be covered under any condition because of verse 7?
Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
Therefore in the end the praying and prophesying were not meant to be seen as conditions ESPECIALLY since logic dictates that if other conditions were to be applied then one DOES NOT have to be covered. Paul was merely giving examples.
Prayer and prophesy can be specific,maybe but perhaps it is more of an idiom, referencing spiritual matters in general, and yes, if you read it carefully, there is no specific place/location specified in 1 Cor 11: 2-16, so it stands to reason that Paul was probably refering to a woman's (and a man's) spiritual behavior out in general life, the home, etc... He does not specify the more structured gathering (eclesia) until verse 17, going into the Lord's supper subject. Remember, chapter and verse came later. This is a letter. The first portion of chapter 11 fits in more with the previous few chapters the deal with believers and their interaction with others around them. We as women can pray/prophecy in a ladies Bible study group, a tea time with a friend, a prayer time with our kids, sharing our faith, etc... Paul is saying that we show these essential realities and truths about God and His creation as we interact with His creation. We as women have the more visible aspect of that perhaps, but it is the full picture (man uncovered, woman covered) that shows off God's amazing ways as we live it out in our families and lives. The formal assembly shows this, too, just in a more specific manner, as the men of God lead. Paul is not contradicting himself. He is consistent with all the other passages regarding men and women.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Thanks for the response. I hear what you're saying, but you are making many many assumptions in your argument. Look at how many times you say things like "I think", or "I suspect", "there seems", "we get a sense". That is not convincing. The black and white reading of the text is clearly in the context of praying and prophesying. If your primary argument is that Paul was merely giving an example that is unconvincing. Why, in the only time head coverings are mentioned in the New Testament, would Paul use such a specific example if his intent was to convey a general rule? It simply does not add up.
@@cheryl1625 Thanks for the response. In fact, great response. I am with you in total agreement. Especially regarding the distinction you point out about general life and then changing the setting to the local body in verse 17. The greek text implies exactly this. V 4, 5, and 16 it is implied as a "public assembly" while 17 local church gathering. So I agree with you! And that is precisely why I asked the question...nobody seems to recognize those distinctions or the fact that if Paul was actually saying "when women prophesy" to mean in church, he would be contradicting himself. If he's not addressing this issue as a rule to be followed in church it dismembers the entire argument of head coverings in church. Taken to the logical conclusion it would essentially read as the opposite, that women should wear head coverings everywhere BUT church! Now one could then argue that it applies inside of the church just as outside, but no Christian women wear a head covering outside of church when they are "praying or prophesying" today. It's a non starter. Today, just as you said, it would be applied in ways of showing deference to the man in a God honoring ways that make sense in our culture, just like they did in Paul's time and culture. Nobody seems to pick up on any of this which, again, is why I asked the question. Just as you, I do not believe Paul was contradicting himself and he is being consistent.
@@Ztaylor19 Thanks for your reply. My apologies for making it appear that I was making assumptions. But that does not detract from the fact that the “alternative” would make any more sense.
You want to be convinced ok so you say the “black and white reading of the text” must be clearly understood. Here’s one that no one but no one can explain away with the idea of veils or hats.
1st Cor. 11:13 we read that Paul asks us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is Observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered were to mean “to be without a veil”, then one would have to explain in detail 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? There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But given the context the word “UNCOVERED” MUST mean "SHORT HAIR." it MAKES 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 assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a woman with short hair or a man with long hair especially if we are looking at their backs to confirm whether the person was male or female. Ergo a NATURAL reaction.
Most veil promoters tend to ignore this verse because it would tear down the idea of veils.
You stated: “Why, in the only time head coverings are mentioned in the New Testament, would Paul use such a specific example if his intent was to convey a general rule?” First of all the question you make is called into question because you typed the words “head covering” which can be construed to mean a foreign object that is worn on the head. If that was your intent then I would have to argue that because it doesn’t say that. It actually says “with her head uncovered” “if the woman be not covered” “is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” “her hair is given her for a covering.” It does not say it in the form of a foreign object but that it should simply be covered. And I am SURE that you know that “Hair” falls very well into this category but veil promoters tend to brush this logic off.
If you want to discuss what the actual reading states, well then why would Paul start with the supposed discussion of a veil in verse 13, then to go into the wrongness of long hair in men, both of which are clearly referring to simple observation? It makes sense that the topic of hair was continuous in both verses 13 and 14. This should also make you think that this doesn’t add up.
Going back to your question. Some people have stated that perhaps some believers were not keeping to hair look based on their gender and of course the creation order as read in chapter 11. I do not see why keeping this so-called rule would be strange even if it were just a “general” one. But based on the way Paul wrote about men keeping their hair short and women long was deemed important (and not so general) based on the reasons he gave like the creation order, because the angels, because the man was the image of God, etc. I don’t see anything wrong in mentioning this especially if some were actually going against the order of nature so to speak, especially since Paul paints a picture of this in verses 4 and 5. it does not mention this. But the point is what the context of the passages keeps pointing towards The fact that the word veil or hat is not there, That it mentions hair and related words like shaven and shorn several times (often ignored), the judgment one can make based on observation that even nature teaches us to know when something doesn’t look right, especially if one combines that with holy practices like praying or prophesying. Therefore trying to force the idea that they are referring to veils just doesn’t add up, either.
In other videos you've stated that you don't require head coverings of women attending worship in your church (I'm glad because I'd love to visit!). An honest question: If you strictly forbid a woman to preach in your church based on Paul's creation argument (I agree there), then should you not also strictly enforce head coverings, if they are likewise grounded in the created order as you assert? I see an inconsistency here.
Or should we wait for the book? 🙃
I wouldn’t call it inconsistency; I would say it is a recognition that not every scriptural principle has the same importance. He doesn’t fail to enforce it because he doesn’t really believe it, but because he knows that it is a tertiary matter (and probably low on that list, honestly). I would say women in church leadership is a high second tier issue.
It isn't inconsistent because he makes the decisions about who will preach in his church and he doesn't make the decisions about what his members wear to church.
There aren't tiers of doctrine, just different levels of maturity in believers. Every doctrine becomes what some may call an "essential" after the Holy Spirit starts convicting you on that point.
It's funny how you call out pastor Joel for not requiring women to cover their heads. But you don't call out pastors who don't require women to have long hair in church.
Hi, just found this video. As a woman, I cover my head with a wig, so the only person who sees my hair is my husband, just like Jewish women do. Is that acceptable?
I think you are referring to something covering the hair and not that the hair itself is the covering. But make that clear if you will. I have heard that some people are saying that since men are told to have short hair, that in contrast, the woman's covering is their hair, being kelp long. Also, throughout church history churchmen have kept their hair long, so that is another confusing issue to me.
check out the headcovering movement!
also mike wingers video on headcoverings
as far as his title...Was it unique to the corinthian church... the obvious answer when you read the passage is no because it says all the churches do it
@@janeEyreAddict Yes, Mike Winger made short video on the subject.
😂
@@janeEyreAddict although that was so long I quit. I have short hair and look feminine. I tried to go to a church and was treated horribly by the parishioners. The women wore long skirts, tennis shoes, hair in buns, no makeup. I came in with slacks, makeup and short hair. Needless to say, I didn't go back! I had talked with the pastor via phone and he never mentioned this!
Glad I chose head covering for praying
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her...
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
God through Paul made it clear that the woman's long hair IS her covering and it wasn't just for praying. Paul was making a point with two examples that a woman praying or prophesying with short hair looks wrong (uncomely KJV) therefore she should keep the tradition of keeping her hair long.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Mary mother of , Jesus our loving Saviour, she had her head covered
@@matildamaher1505 Seems like you are sure about this, can you supply the part in the Bible where this is mentioned? I would really like to read that. Also what is the basis of your belief that Mary wore a head covering. Was it because you read it in the Bible? saw on paintings? Movies, etc?
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter 1 Corinthians 11:4-7
We don't need any book to figure out head coverings when the Bible is sufficient to teach us that long hair is the covering.
The Bible does not teach that. It clearly teaches the opposite as a matter of fact. It teaches that a separate covering is needed. That wouldn’t make any sense for hair to be the covering.
@@jlegassey3 Why do you defy God's words? You said that it "...wouldn’t make any sense for hair to be the covering" Yet the Bible literally states VERBATIM..."But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." 1st Cor. 11:15.
This is what happens when you listen to man interpret the Bible instead of READING it and letting God teach you. SMH
🤦♂
@@jlegassey3
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her...
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering.
-NASB
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
If a fabric covering is actually required,
then all references to hair are
totally irrelevant to the subject.
It only can make sense if the
long hair of a woman is the 'covering'.
She should be covered, with her long hair.
To have short hair, like a man, means that
she is basically bald. Therefore uncovered.
@@jlegassey3
and every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, doth dishonour her own head, for it is one and the same thing with her being shaven,
for if a woman is not covered -- then let her be shorn, and if [it is] a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven -- let her be covered;...
-YLT
OR one might say:
and every woman praying or prophesying with very short hair, does
dishonor her own head, for it is just like her head was shaved
and made bald
for if a woman's head is not covered with long hair- then she
should get her hair cut very short, but since it's a shame for a woman to have her hair cut very short or to have her head shaved and made
bald-she really should have her head covered with long hair.
Well said. I don't know which version people are reading that says or hints to the word "separate" Or why would anyone not be able to read how hair is written 3 times directly and 4 time indirectly (shorn and shaven). It would take a lot of bias to read past these words and act like they don't matter. It makes me sick to see how the enemy has blinded the eyes of so many that they cannot accept verse 15 which literally states that long hair is the covering. 😪
Wait:
1.There are no culturally specific symbols commanded in the NT.
2. The inclusion of the gentiles (you and I) entire point was that culturally specific laws are not required to fulfill God's law.
3. Paul adamantly argued against binding men with culturally specific traditions.
...To just up and add one himself??? Something doesn't square there.
Correct. head covering is not culturally specific, but timeless and universal. That’s the point of the video
@@carlinbyrd3948 True that it is not culturally specific, but timeless and universal. Which is why it is referring to long hair and short hair. The covering being long hair and to be uncovered means to have short hair. This makes much more sense when saying it is timeless and universal as opposed to those who think they are referring to a foreign object.
The point FA makes much more sense. Something deemed universal cannot have a synthetic tie to it like a hat or veil. For it to be universal it must be natural and common to all in this case long hair on women, ergo the covering the bible refers to.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter So would you say that women should not be allowed to enter church if their hair is not long?
@@nerychristian First your question assumes certain things that I do not agree with. The passage does not refer to going to a place which many call today a church. Neither should we assume that Paul was referring to a gathering. Just that women ought to cover their heads with long hair. So I do not believe that women ought to have their hair long while ONLY in a church or church gathering. So let’s get that mistake out of the way. Paul, when referencing prayer and prophesying, was giving us a couple of examples not TWO conditions as to when to cover. He never uses the word “only” and refers back to nature and creation when explaining why women ought to cover in long hair and men not to do that (aka have short hair). The context of the passage shows that the covering goes way back BEFORE the concept of churches and during creation when there were no veils or hats. How do explain that away? Paul was merely saying that it looks worse when a woman is uncovered (aka not covered in long hair) WHILE doing something LIKE praying or prophesying.
Should a man wear a head covering?
Just as women should cover their head to show they are submitting to their spouse, then men should cover to show they to need to submit to God. If he has chosen Jesus as His Lord, then he should show that commitment by wearing a head covering, just as women show their submission, so should man.
The difference is not the head covering but who wears it and when. In Deut. 6:8-9, God tells us to apply the Ten Commandments on our forehead, then, when Jesus tells us to "keep" also His words, we apply the Sermon on the Mount to show our commitment to The Father and The Son.
A man should never wear a head covering, in church, if they haven't chosen Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. They are not to submit to any man, company etc.. They should remove their head covering before entering a church etc.. To not wear a head covering simply shows that you have not chosen in whom you shall serve.
If a woman is married and the man has not committed to the Lord then she also should not cover, for then she would be usurping the man's authority.
A woman should be covering her head, the man in her life. Every child of God should cover with The Father or The Son, or even the Holy Spirit. The scripture shows that all three would be what we should strive for.
To keep using different translations is what keeps us going in circles. Choose in whom you shall serve, then stick with it. And remember there is an order with God, man should learn who their God is and then try to be like their Heavenly Father, then women follow their head, the man. woman learn from their spouse or the head of the house. That is why they are to ask questions at home from their head.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions for them to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered no one disputes this but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
As I mentioned earlier some will lay claim that they must be referring to a physical 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. Allow me to expand on this if you will because this is very important.
If you are going to make the argument to prove your point that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible supposedly claims that women ought to wear a veil based on two conditions, then it is only logical to understand that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one; for example: if the woman is speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should deny this, meaning that the woman should wear their “veil” under other conditions then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
Please note that the belief in women wearing veils for many groups hinges on this “two-condition” argument because if there were actual conditions then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. But keep in mind that it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off. Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this.
Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be another reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should he not be covered under any condition because of verse 7?
Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, we should be asking when they are referring to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered."
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
If the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s the case, then to be uncovered would mean to have short hair. If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
Why are we ignoring the context of the entire passage? 1 Corinthians 11:13
[13] Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? (ESV)
1st Cor. 11:13 we read that Paul asks us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is Observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered were to mean “to be without a veil”, then one would have to explain in detail 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? There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But given the context the word “UNCOVERED” MUST mean "SHORT HAIR." it MAKES 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 assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a woman with short hair or a man with long hair especially if we are looking at their backs to confirm whether the person was male or female. Ergo a NATURAL reaction.
Most veil promoters tend to ignore this verse because it would tear down the idea of veils.
Also why would Paul start with the supposed discussion of a veil in verse 13, then to go into the wrongness of long hair in men, both of which are clearly referring to simple observation? It makes sense that the topic of hair was continuous in both verses 13 and 14. This should also make you think that this doesn’t add up.
The ESV adds the word wife but it is woman, and the apostle paul isn't saying judge for yourselves as in you decide if you want to do it or not ,
@FA-God-s-Words-Matter so what does the scripture mean about men uncovering? Does it mean when they pray they have to remove their long hair only when praying?
@@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus Sorry for long pause. I have noticed that most head covering promoters misinterpret the beliefs of those who believe that long hair is the covering. In their efforts to show that it doesn’t make sense they will state something like:
“If hair were the covering, then men should be shaved bald (aka uncovered) every time they pray.”
You’d be surprised at how many times I’ve read this in the comments section of various TH-cam videos.
There are several errors here, the first being that no one is saying that to be uncovered means to be shaved. If a woman is to be covered in long hair and a man is NOT to be covered in long hair, then we are not talking about baldness or being shaved it just means that a man should not have long hair or another way to say the same thing is that he should have SHORT hair. So that is mistake number one.
Mistake number two is that what Paul was preaching had to do with some action that requires something to be taken off (or put on). Although it is true that Paul was saying that men ought to be uncovered when praying or prophesying but he wasn’t being exclusive he was just giving a couple of examples. The idea is that a believing man should not have long hair (meaning he should be uncovered) while doing anything holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying.
What? Do you think Paul saying it was ok to be “covered” while preaching, talking in tongues, interpreting tongues, casting out devils, singing to the Lord, worshiping to the Lord, dancing to the Lord, etc. as long as it was not those two exclusive moments?
Evidence that he must have been referring to hair is also based on his mentioning of the order of creation between men and women in verses 8 and 9. If Paul is making the effort to include this as a reason why women should be covered, and men uncovered then it must be BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats. It also must be BEFORE any idea of church. Therefore, what else could Paul be talking about if not hair way back in the beginning? It had to have been something that existed since then and had to have been natural like hair.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter just to be clear , do you believe a man can wear a hat while in church praying and prophesying?
1 Corinthians 11 has nothing to do with women wearing head coverings in the gathered body; it has nothing to do with the gathered body at all. Paul is talking about authority in marriage and that the woman is always to have a "head covering" (her husband being the "head" that is "covering" her); and the man is also to have a "head covering" (Christ being the "head" that is "covering" him).
The woman dishonors her "head" (her husband) when she is not under his "covering" (authority) when she prays or prophesies, and the man dishonors his "head" (Christ) when he is under his wife's "covering" (authority) when he prays or prophesies. This is why Paul referenced Genesis and the creation order of the man and woman. Because they didn't adhere to this truth that Paul was expounding they were cut off from the garden.
As good as this may sound as it has some logic to it but the problems arise when one brings up those who are single. If this is only based on married couples then it is only logical to say that those who are single can be without a "covering." However one wishes to interpret this. Also, the creation order is another issue along with the angels verse therefore the context does not fit that it is referring only to married people. Plus the glaring usage of the words long hair written twice and the words shorn and shaven which is obviously hair related. We cannot just ignore this. It is obviously referring to the order God has made but also it is the reason why men ought to keep their hair short and women long.
@FA As I stated, Paul is talking about covenant relationship; so, yes, that excludes single people and there's no reason why these verses have to be speaking about everyone just because Paul is using metaphorical language with hair as an example of headship. If you are going to claim that these verses are really about believers' lengths of hair and not authority/submission then where does Paul, or any other New Testament writer, give the inspired measurements for proper hair lengths? How does that work with Christianity being composed of many different ethnicities/tribes? Your interpretation lays a stumbling block before brothers and sisters.
@@TheStormbreaker3 With all due respect Paul may be talking about a relationship but the context of the passage does not measure up to a marital one. One does not have to be a major in English or even Greek to see that the KJV translators never once mentioned the words husband or wife. When it comes to the word hair it is not metaphorical. One cannot escape or brush aside the fact that it is written TWICE the words LONG HAIR. If you are trying to convince others that they really don’t mean hair when it says the word hair then why mention the length? Then Paul asks all of us to make a judgment call as to whether it looks right for a woman to pray uncovered (meaning short hair) and in the very next verse he notes that even nature teaches us it looks wrong for a man to have LONG hair. Meaning it is sort of innate. How is this metaphorical? Paul is not being metaphorical when he refers to short hair and long hair as uncovered and covered, initially. Then REPEATS the same idea in verses 13 and 14. So if hair doesn’t mean hair but headship, then the verses would not make sense. Just like when you want to think man or woman in this passage is ONLY referring to married couples. You seem to want to replace words to fit your narrative, which is misleading.
It says that the reason for a WOMAN to have a covering is due to the fact that she was the second in the creation and due to the angels, which I assume you must also think must be metaphorical. Also, one does not need to know the proper hair lengths to know the difference between long and short. The Greek word for the covering states “head hanging down” therefore if it hangs from the head it is long if it doesn’t it is short. It is very simple.
You can’t expect people to read scripture to then say they don’t mean what you think. Though I certainly agree that there is an issue on authority here but it was mentioned to lead to the hair length issue in that men being the image of God should not wear their hair long and that women being the glory of the man and second in creation should keep their hair long.
By claiming most of this passage as being metaphorical you misunderstand the scriptures and in turn may mislead others.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter An amazing display of logic just based on the facts.
6 Reasons for head covering
Because the ordinance of head covering is for certain times (v4-6), demonstrating a removable covering. (v6) It was to be worn during certain times (prayer and prophecy, or worship). This is not possible with hair. A man (men were instructed not to cover their heads) cannot remove his hair then put it back on when praying is done! “If a wife (woman) will not” demonstrates the covering was removable.
Because a woman’s hair (length according to the individual) is for her glory. (v15) Part of the purpose of the head covering is to veil this glory, not showcase it. Individual glory is the LAST thing any should want in the Presence of God!
Because this creates quite a quandary for women who cannot grow “long hair.” Can they still pray and prophesy in certain settings? Regardless of hair length though, a covering can still be worn.
Because of the way verse six would read if we substituted “hair” or “long hair:” “If a wife (woman) will not [have long hair], let her cut her hair short…” Huh? She would already have done that! The whole point of that verse is to show the shame of her not covering.
Because it would be very odd if her symbol of authority in the presence of angels (v10) was one that gave her glory (v15), since the biblical testimony of angelic worship is not glory for angels, but angels showing humility and covering themselves. (Isa 6:1-3)
Because the Church agreed with the simplicity and power of this teaching for 1950 years, from the time of Apostles (v16) through the mid-Twentieth Century (1950-60s). We only began to disobey these precepts on a large scale when feminism hit the West like a tidal wave.
Spiritual headship was ordained by God in the garden, demonstrated plainly within the very order and way He created, First, Adam from God, ...Second, Eve from Adam.
Paul is simply referring to the natural order here which is revealed unto us all in and through the scriptures starting in Genesis, for the sole purpose of establishing the spiritual order God commands to flourish within the family, the church, its assemblies and its government, which God Himself created, and thus Himself established and ordained from the beginning.
Yet we must remember, in the beginning, Eve was not created with a piece of cloth on her head, and no where in scripture do we find the instituting of such a law that commands woman to wear cloth on their heads in the Old Covenant, therefore Paul is not seeking to establish a new rule, a new ordinance and or a new law, which teaches all woman to start wearing pieces of cloth on their heads.
Paul`s burden is a matter of the heart, which is communicated unto us all throughout the entire Bible.
A woman that fears The Lord she shall be praised...
A meek and quite spirit is precious in the sight of The Lord...
Wives be subject unto your husbands in everything.....
Sarah, having such a faith filled heart towards her husband, called him lord, therefore reveals she was doing all things not unto man with eye service, as a man pleaser, no but being moved by The Spirit doing all things unto The Lord.
Thus far, I have not been able to find one scripture whereby God says....
A woman must wear a piece of cloth on her head, and then she shall be praised??
So, no head covering for woman? Is long hair good? I was thinking same thing, eve didn't have cloth on her head.
@@theprodigal7143 I believe the heart of the matter as to why Paul was led to use the reference to a woman`s hair, is yes to cause all to behold that which is revealed most commonly within nature, whereby the majority of places in the world it is usually a natural cultural tradition for woman to grow their hair longer than the men that surround them in their culture do, and thus it is also an evidence that they themselves do know full well that they have been created for a different function and role than a man, and thus the very fact that most woman do naturally desire to grow their hair longer than men is a common natural expression of their known femininity....but if you travel to some parts of the world you will discover that some places like Africa, many woman can find it very difficult to grow their hair long, say compared to many other parts of the world.... so the question then remains...if you are going to start making rules or laws about how you think woman must grow their hair a certain length, well then one must ask how long?? Can you find a law in the scriptures that says how long a woman`s hair should be?? the answer to that question is no.
So why then is Paul referring to hair then at all?
Well in the law of God you will discover that an adulterous woman if found unrepentant and guilty of adultery, her husband then had the authority from God to then have her handed over to the civil authorities and the if found guilty she would have all of her hair cut/shaved off... doesn't matter how long it was, it would needs be shaved completely off..... a woman with a shaved head in Israel would then be the outward mark or sign that she shamefully was a guilty, unrepentant unruly, unfaithful adulterous woman whom must not be trusted and therefore avoided by all.
But yes, when Paul refers to nature, he is stating that all woman everywhere, do have hair that grows out of their heads and thus by nature a woman is being told by God through nature itself that it is not his design or will to have them have no hair. Then we see all the more clearer within the written law of Israel concerning what is to happen to a woman`s hair if she is unfaithful. She must needs suffer the judgment which is against Gods design, and that is to have her hair removed.
@@theprodigal7143 that wouldn’t make sense with the scripture being that he says 1 Corinthians 11:6 “For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off… “
So if she doesn’t cover her head with hair, she might as well shave off her hair? That’s not there?
That position would make no sense within this verse, nor the full passage of the scripture.
@@Juduh I believe the covering Paul is referring to here in this specific verse which you are referring to is not a physical covering, but spiritual.
Meaning, Paul is making a declaration concerning the condemnation of all adulterous like rebellious heart conditions, whereby speaking unto all women, he is warning all, that if you begin coming unto God in prayer, with an unrepentant stubborn, rebellious/adulterous like heart condition, yet you think The LORD will answer your request & or complaint.... take heed and know that before God with this unrepentant heart condition, you shall be appearing before Him as one that according unto the written law of God as one who should have your head shaved.
Proverbs15:8
"The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight."
Proverbs 15:29
"The LORD is far from the wicked: but he heareth the prayer of the righteous."
Proverbs 28:9
"He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination."
Conclusion:
Therefore God has ordained the husband to be Christs under-shepherd over and unto the wife...thus it is written, the husband is the head of the wife..... For the woman to be found praying with her head uncovered is for her to be found praying unto God with an unrepentant rebellious heart condition towards her husband, thus in light of Gods law is viewed by God as none other than an adulterous woman who is walking in rebellion unto none other than Christ Himself.
And again... Christ is the head of the man. Therefore for a man to have his head covered, is for a man to be coming unto God in prayer with a heart condition whereby he is not coming in sincere faith and subjection unto Christ alone, therefore such an unrepentant man shall also be viewed by God as "a shame" before him, and yes he himself is walking as an adulterous bride of Christ, whom if not found walking in sincere faith in Christ and repentance towards God shall be judged on that final day of judgment as one whom was pleased to be in subjection unto that spirit of rebellion, and thus was habitually content with having his head covered by that filthy harlot anti-Christ spirit, whom is none other than the ruling head of all the unfaithful insincere confessors, whom are therefore numbered as those whom belong unto that anti-Christ church in the earth, which is described in the book of revelation as none other than "THE HARLOT"....( Revelation 17:5)
Thus it is written of such unfaithful adulterous men....
2 Thessalonians 3:14
"And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ASHAMED."
Mark 8:38
"Whosoever therefore shall be ASHAMED of me and of my words in this ADULTEROUS and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ASHAMED, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."
Jude 1:11-13
" Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves WITHOUT FEAR: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own SHAME; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
And yet a word of exhortation unto all men, whom by grace alone do now seek to walk in sincere repentance and subject faith unto their one and only head , Jesus Christ
1 John 2:28-29
And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ASHAMED before him (as an adulterous bride will be) at his coming.
If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.
Romans 10:9-11
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him SHALL NOT BE ASHAMED.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 7…
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue.
Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix.
“For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold.
This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband.
So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
Paul didn't appeal to Creation but nature. It was "natural" or normal for Romans to have short hair. Nature doesn't teach that though. God made men's hair grow long, and the rest is cultural. Paul is explaining the principle (don't be a stumbling block for your brother), he is not inventing a new universal commandment.
In short: if you aren't provoking a confusion in the church, by not veiling yourself, then don't burden yourself. If you are, then do as Romans do (did).
Do women only cover once they’re married?
It’s a symbol of authority. Daughters are under authority too.
Paul sums up God gave women hair as a covering contrasted with men having short hair.
@@theresaread72 incorrect,with that logic, why would he say that they might as well shave their head in the beginning then?
@@Juduh Good Question! We go from clear to unclear But if a woman has long hair , it is her glory; for her is given to her as a covering. Paul says hair IS the covering.it’s talking about shaved, shorn let her be covered, and then it says she is given hair as a covering. I don’t think you can be dogmatic about it and say I’m incorrect.
@@theresaread72 If someone says another is incorrect it’s not dogmatic.
Maybe I can rephrase, your statement seems to be incorrect based on the contextual evidence of the passage.
Here’s why,
1 Corinthians 11:6
If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.
What makes more sense, replacing the word with vail or with hair?
If your answer is hair (which would be quite illogical (based on the context)), then wouldn’t that imply that a women with short/shorn hair would need to cover their/her head, meaning she would need to make it shorn, but that would be a contradiction, as the/her hair is already shorn?
If Paul meant hair, why then wouldn’t he clearly express that by using the word for hair, but instead he uses the word, that is in relation to veiling, which is physical?
Joel, your natural theologian. Go Catholic already.
I think he might actually want to go to heaven.
With your argument of glory then women shouldn’t even be in church as the women is the glory of man.
I think I'll stick with RC Sproul's and MacArthur's explaination on 1 Cor 11. If you take this videos understanding then when you go out to witness to people don't wear any shoes........( I actually like this Pastor above).
Do you just cut out verse 15?
Uh RC Sproul had his wife wear a covering
I’m unfamiliar with MacArthur’s explanation of the text. But as for Sproul’s, I assume you are referring to this: m.th-cam.com/video/fzS_7ZnXR5o/w-d-xo.html am I correct? Joel would seem to be in agreement with this take, as far as it goes.
I don’t see how Joel’s exegesis would lead to the rational you describe.
@@cosmictreason2242 Yeah, their hair! Only Mrs is alive. Maybe one time in their lives they did but I have seen his videos and the words came out of his mouth that he does not adhere to coverings as a physical cloth etc.....Vs 15 of that chapter is very clear!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@solochristo65 Amen. Don't be too upset people will read more into the scriptures than what is meant to be understood. Pray for them.
the Bible says head covering is a tradition. nothing else.
Not even close. Read 1 Corinthians 11 for yourself, preferably in a translation like the ASV, CEV, ERV NAB, NLT, NRSV or RSV, any of which make it clearer what kind of covering Paul was talking about.
i read 1 cor 11 many times. the Bible says that every case, situation, everything has to be based on at least TWO witnesses. in 1 cor 11 - not only you have only one witness (and nowhere else is this topic addressed in other passages of the NT) but also this very passage also says that the woman's hair is her covering.
you are confused and you do not understand the Bible because you are a bot, a tool, a thing which has no soul and no heart, just a program.@@Berean_with_a_BTh
@@aikozoe6598 That's right. Berean_with_a_BTh does not understand the Bible. He or she rejects and misinforms people about the Bible. If the Bible uses the word tradition he/she will say it is not. I've seen this person's comments elsewhere and will brush aside and devalue the part you mentioned about hair being the covering. In other words he/she wants you to believe what they interpret not what you read.
@marriage4life893 again, you manipulate the text. paul says that they are not contentious in all the churches. and that is a custom, a tradtion. so dont put your own manipulative words into the Scripture.
your ungodly behavior and manipulation may be the result of the fact that you are constantly making masonic hand signs... showing that it is the satan who is your master.
maybe you are not even a real person but a computer program in deepfake technology, a masonic tool of deception....indeed you are!!!
no Bible verses can persuade somebody like that... you simply stick to your agenda...
People are so willing to take the verses out of context in reference to using hair versus a cloth. Do you realize what that does to the rest of your exegesis? Is it so hard to take one thing to heart? Your wickedness, and jezebel spirit is what causes you to be so against the Word of God.
So what is it that you believe Paul was talking about hair or a cloth? Keep in mind that your reply will be scrutinized with scripture.
@@defendingthegospel721 Ok pal, Paul is definitely calling for a cloth. Go ahead and make the hair argument though.
@@lastfirst23163 I was hoping you would prove it was a cloth. But you know what I have noticed to those who believe in the cloth covering? It is that they have no evidence not one word in all of 1 Cor 1-16 does it mention of a cloth. And I think you know it. Unless you are going to use some modernized version of the Bible the KJV makes no reference to a cloth but yet hair is discussed SEVEN times.
It flat out states long hair being the covering in verse 15. There is so much evidence that it could not be denied it is hair unless they had a premeditated bias, because it would take a strong bias to believe in a cloth.
@@defendingthegospel721 Yeah I don't care, it won't send you to hell if you don't do it. I think it is at most a tertiary issue.
@@lastfirst23163 In a way I agree this should not be an issue. Normally I wouldn't care if a woman wishes to wear a head covering or not or if a man does the same. It only becomes an issue (at least to me) when one makes it doctrinal and are promoting it as if a woman does not do it they are doing some kind of sin. (Not saying that you are). But in this I agree.
Y’all really don’t want the world to come to church do you 🤦♀️
Um where do you see THAT in the Bible? We want the world to come to JESUS not some man-made denomination that have opposing doctrines from each other. Remember there were NO churches back then so let's stick to scripture and not to what man has created.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter LOL. There were no churches back then? I see plenty of Paul's epistles that are addressed to churches. And even God himself, in the book of Revelation, addresses the 7 churches of Asia.
@@nerychristian That is common misconception but even scholars agree that there were no STRUCTURAL churches at that time. Maybe YEARS after the Bible was finished but not during Paul's time. When you read the word "church" in the Bible you shouldn't allow your current thinking to mix with how it was back then. The church was the group of people who believed in Jesus not a religious place. For example when Paul says "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth,." he is not referring to a place like you would say to the First Baptist Church in Kentucky. He is saying that there are a group of people who believe that live in a certain place. Otherwise it doesn't make sense if he meant a place when he says the Church salutes or greets you. A place or thing cannot salute. The BEST evidence is when Paul says "if the church comes together into one place" So yeah there were NO churches back then the way most people view churches TODAY. You need to try to separate your thoughts from that of the Bible and read the surrounding verses to get a better idea of what they are actually referring to. Also keep in mind that they were being persecuted so building up a structural church would be like paining a target to all their enemies. So in another way it doesn't make sense that they would have had structural churches.
I don't believe about wimen being more deceived by doctrine and false teachers. My husband is attending Pentacostal church and I am being convicted it isn't right. Also I left the RCC over discernment of Holy Spirit. You are definitely derogatory on women. I don't have problem with male authority in church only but the discernment thing is way off base. Also you forget aboyt Deborah and the women deacons in the early Christian church
You need to learn
Watch the video he did with bnonn tennant on 1 Corinthians 11
2 Corinthians 11 say men can be deceived like Eve was, Departing from the Simplicity of Christ. If I may I recommend Joe Schimmel at GoodFightMinistries and Blessed Hope Chapel for Biblical teachings. Why RCC is not Biblical. Yes, you are right these men Lord it over Women, something Jesus said not to do to all people. Also, 1 Corinthians 11 is talking about hair, God gave women hair as a covering. Paul actually says it. God Bless
@K M your argument here is not with this pastor, but with the word of God. It is only a generalization, so there will certainly be cases like yours in which specific women are not deceived, but a man is. That does not negate the scripture. Praise God who gives the knowledge of the truth that He saved you out of Catholicism. That wasn’t your wisdom, that was His grace.
No, this understanding does not ignore women to whom God gave discernment in the Bible; there is no contradiction there. However there is no record of women holding the office of deacon in the NT church; the word translated deacon can just mean servant, and it is clear from the lists of qualifications that these were men.
@@kaylar3197 Was wondering why it wouldn’t it be wisdom to come out of the Roman Catholic Church. God gives us the word of God so that we can compare and contrast Truth with error. Can’t it be her wisdom and God’s grace.
There are no prohibitions in the Bible about deaconess since it is unclear whether it it talking about deaconess or deacon’s wives. Women can serve women better than men can and we are all called to contend earnestly for the Faith once handed down to the saints, and all are called to preach the Gospel. God Bless