No one in the early Church interpreted 1 Corinthians 11 as speaking about women not cutting their hair as being their head covering. They understood this to be a veil, and prior to about 1950, there were virtually no Christian women who went to Church with uncovered heads. The King James Version provides a very literal translation of the verse in question: "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." Before we get to what it means that a woman should cover her head "because of the angels" we should first consider what it means for a woman to have "power" on her head. Most modern translations follow the interpretation found in the King James Version's margin notes, and add some words that are not explicitly in the original in order to provide a clearer meaning: "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels" (NKJV). This is consistent with the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom. And what this means specifically is that it is a symbol that the woman is under the authority of her husband. So why should a woman wear a head covering "because of the angels"? There are four interpretations of this. 1. Tertullian interpreted this to refer to angels being tempted by the daughters of men, but this interpretation hinges on his interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, which was rejected by most of the Fathers of the Church. 2. Ambrosiaster interpreted the angels as a reference to bishops, based on an interpretation some give to the angels mention in conjunction with the seven Churches in Revelation chapters 2 and 3): "The veil signifies power, and the angels are bishops, as it says in the Revelation of John, where, because they are men, they are criticized for not rebuking the people, though good behavior on their part is also praised" (Ancient Christian Texts: Commentaries on Romans and 1-2 Corinthians, Ambrosiaster, translated and edited by Gerald L. Bray (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2009) p. 143).p. 172). 3. St. Cyril of Alexandria interpreted this to mean that the angels are offended by women who are disobedient, and show disregard for this practice: 4. Blessed Theodoret interprets this to mean that women who disregard this practice offend the guardian angels of the men who might be distracted in prayer by their lack of modesty; and their own guardian angels as well: "By authority he referred to the covering, as it is to say, Let her show her subjection by covering herself, and not least for the sake of the angels, who are set over human beings and entrusted with their care. Likewise also in acts, "It is not he, but his angel" [Acts 12:15]; and the Lord, "See that you do not despise one of these little ones who believe in me: Amen I say to you, their angels continually look upon the face of my Father in heaven" [Matthew 18:10] ( (Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 1, trans. Robert Charles Hill, (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 205). The interpretations of St. Cyril and Blessed Theodoret are by no means mutually exclusive, and I think together, they make the best sense of this verse.
The King James translators even said it themselves with their alternate translation in the margin of verse 10. "That is, a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband." Also in verse 15 they provide the alternate of "Or, veil." for covering. It is also incoherent to make it about hair since then it would read: 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with *shorn hair* dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be *shorn,* let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be *not shorn.*
Praise the Lord! I do understand where you’re coming from, as the same could be said, why does he mention hair then, if it’s not about hair… But I’m curious to know how you then interpret verse 15. When reading in Greek we see it does not say: long (adjective) hair (noun). But it’s a verb which means: to let hair grow out. It continues and actually states for the first time the noun used for “covering”: her hair is given her for a veil/covering/clothe/mantle (noun). How do you put it then, that an additional veil is needed, if her hair is given as such? It seems to be that Verse 15 is the answer to all the “confusing verses” before that. (I carefully say that, but many scholars agree this chapter is really not a easy one.) God bless! PS: I just noticed I am commenting on the thoughts of the initial comment AND the first comment of that comment😂. I thought it came from the same person.
@jsn4him368 the Early Church Fathers were mostly Greek speaking people, and none of them interpret this passage as saying that long hair is the covering St. Paul is talking about. The only debate (such as it was) was whether unmarried women needed to cover their head with a veil or not...and the answer was that they did.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 Thank you for your reply! Just to understand… you are saying what Paul wrote in this sentence doesn’t really matter. But more weight is put on what the early church fathers, who lived after Paul, said and believed? And this isn’t an attack, I’m just seeing, if I understood correctly what you wrote, since to me Paul wrote in very clear Greek, that the hair was given as a covering.
@@jsn4him368 I am not saying that what St. Paul wrote doesn't matter. I am saying it is clear from the text itself, as well as from the history of the interpretation of the text that when St. Paul says women should cover their heads in Church, he was speaking of a veil, and not long hair... which women normally had back then without anyone having to instruct them to have long hair.
On point with regards on having a long hair and the spiritual significance of it to honor the head of the woman w/c is the man and ultimately God as the head of Christ. There's a deeper meaning and reason behind it that will play part in the judgement day but at the time he is preaching to the Corinthians he is stating the basics
The King James translators even said it themselves with their alternate translation in the margin of verse 10. "That is, a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband." Also in verse 15 they provide the alternate of "Or, veil." for covering. It is also incoherent to make it about hair since then it would read: 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with shorn hair dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be shorn, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be not shorn.
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
@@robertmiller812 There are many problems with what you said, and I don't have the time to address them, but have you ever read the Fathers? The Bible didn't drop out of space, and the earliest Christians didn't see it like you did, including the disciples of the Apostle John. The Church had the view that it was veils for over 1900 years and somehow we just figured out what it meant the same time as feminism by coincidence? Also worth noting is if you were in fact correct, then men must be bald since it doesn't say "less covered" it says "uncovered" If hair is the covering, then men need to shave their head. Seriously, where do you think the idea of men taking their hats off when in church or doing other solemn things like pledging to the flag came from?
@@DrGero15 Why would you want me to put aside the Word of God to believe in the fallacy of men which you generically write as “the Fathers?” Am I supposed to guess who you are referring to? You seem to prefer the words of men rather than the words of God. If you had more respect to the words of God than men then you would know that “the Church” that you refer to (which I do not who are you including) who followed this false doctrine were wrong for years. Because the Bible ALREADY gave us an example of how God’s people were wrong about a doctrine for centuries. You should read up on Acts 7:47-52, where God’s people thought it was ok to built temples for years when God did not want that and was evidently upset. So you really need to stop trying to find outside sources to follow this false doctrine. God even says that HIS people are destroyed due to lack of knowledge Hosea 4:6. Doctrine is confirmed by the scriptures not by how long or how many people followed a doctrine. Seriously read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 You stated that “If hair is the covering, then men need to shave their head.” This shows that you do not understand the scriptures clearly you are referring to verse 4 and for some reason you think that I am saying the “uncovered” means to be bald, when I made no such definition. If a woman is supposed to cover her head with LONG hair (aka covered) then what is the obvious understanding when it says a man is supposed to be uncovered? That he should have SHORT hair. Instead you want to put words in my mouth that I NEVER stated. You should have more respect to the Word of God instead of brushing aside and following after theories and man-made church traditions or especially like how you mentioned SOME take their hats off during solemn moments as if that were some kind of proof. This made me really sad to read how much you cling to non-biblical and unprovable traditions rather than God’s holy words.
@@robertmiller812 So are you! The difference is my tradition is almost two thousand years older. You assume you have some knowledge and are better than Billions of Christians over thousands of years. I couldn't be that prideful. You are misunderstanding the text or I wouldn't even bother bring up history. The men who translated the AV understood it to be referring to veiling, they put it in the chapter summery and marginal notes. Do you really think you know more about what it means than those who learned directly from St. John the Revelator? Where does it say short? It says Covered and Uncovered. If covered is hair than uncovered is no hair. You are arguing for covered and less covered which is added subjectivity to the objective words on the page. What counts as long? How many inches? Sounds like to be safe and make sure we are obeying we need woman to never cut their hair and for men to cut all of it off. What if in God's mind, long is over 1/4 inch? Then most men are in sin. What if long is 48 inches? Then some women can't even grow long hair and no men are ever in sin even if they grow their hair out. You need to read all of Acts 7 since you are getting lost in the weeds and coming up with weird doctrine by mixing words from two different paragraphs and mistaking a quote from Isaiah as a condemnation. God had no issue with the Temple they built. His problem with them is in the last half of the sentence you cut in two in your citation (which is bolded below), the last line in Stephens discourse "who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it." Acts 7:37-53 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: to whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. *But Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things? Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers* : who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
@@robertmiller812 So are you! The difference is my tradition is almost two thousand years older. You assume you have some knowledge and are better than Billions of Christians over thousands of years. I couldn't be that prideful. You are misunderstanding the text or I wouldn't even bother bring up history. The men who translated the AV understood it to be referring to veiling, they put it in the chapter summery and marginal notes. Do you really think you know more about what it means than those who learned directly from St. John the Revelator? Where does it say short? It says Covered and Uncovered. If covered is hair than uncovered is no hair. You are arguing for covered and less covered which is added subjectivity to the objective words on the page. What counts as long? How many inches? Sounds like to be safe and make sure we are obeying we need woman to never cut their hair and for men to cut all of it off. What if in God's mind, long is over 1/4 inch? Then most men are in sin. What if long is 48 inches? Then some women can't even grow long hair and no men are ever in sin even if they grow their hair out. You need to read all of Acts 7 since you are getting lost in the weeds and coming up with weird doctrine by mixing words from two different paragraphs and mistaking a quote from Isaiah as a condemnation. God had no issue with the Temple they built. His problem with them is in the last half of the sentence you cut in two in your citation (which is bolded below), the last line in Stephens discourse "who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it." Acts 7:37-53 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: to whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. *But Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things?* *Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:* who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
Because of the angels should be part of the following sentence. So verse 11 becomes Nevertheless, because of the angels, neither woman without man nor man without woman. In 1 Cor 11:2-16 Paul is giving us his authoritative interpretation of Genesis 1 "image of God" and Genesis 2 the creation of woman out of man. The image of God entails the 2 stage creation of Adam, as a man and then woman out of him. This is what Paul is referring to with "man is the ..glory of God" and "woman is the glory of man". Together they complete Adam as the image of God. Now, the reference to angels is from Psalm 8 which is a creation psalm outlining the order of creation and all reality. The order throughout all reality from top to bottom is an hierarchical order in Psalm 8. Paul is using the Psalm 8 hierarchical order of reality as a grid when he discusses Gen 1 and 2. His argument and conclusion is that man is the head of woman. However, he knows that Psalm 8 only mentions mankind. It does not delineate mankind into man and woman as Gen 2 does. So, verse 11 nevertheless, because of the angels, ie because in psalm 8, netther woman without man nor man without woman. So it is 😢 Paul saying he recognises Psalm 8 does not mention man andcwoman. The next verse, verse 12, then explains why it is okay for Psalm 8 to just mention mankind. Verse 12 for, in the Lord, just as woman out of man, so also man through woman. Woman out of man is a repetition of what Paul said earlier from Gen 2. In the Lord, is telling us that Christ is the creator of man and woman as detailed in Gen 2. Just as Christ is the creator of the fact that every man is born from a woman. The two things together tells us that Christ had made us, man and woman, to be in this together, albeit with different tasks. Just as verse 11 has said that the psalmist expresses us being together as mankind. Now, how do we know that "in the Lord" refers to Christ as our creator. We know it because back in chapter 8:6 of 1 corinthians it told us that "one Lord, Jesus Christ through whom are all things...". That this is what "in the Lord" is referring to is confirmed by the last part of 1 cor 11:12c "and all things out of God (presumably God the Father)" which is the same as what was said about God the Father in 1 cor 8:6 "one God the Father out of whom all things". So 1 cor 11 including the issue of covering or not covering one head and including verse 3 about headship of woman and man and Christ, is all about examining and applying 1 Cor 8:6 regarding the eternal relationship of God the Father to Christ Jesus the Lord. So, 1 cor 11:3 sums up the application of the hierarchical order of reality grid of Psalm 8 to man and woman, and to Christ and man, and to God the Father and Christ thd Lord. All 3 are hierarchical relationships. All 3 image the other just like Gen 2 shows us how the building of woman out of man makes Adam the image of God. Furgher clarification. Why is it psalm 8? Paul uses the terms honor, glory, angels and he is discussing order. Psalm 8 is a creation psalm mentioning all these. It is also used again by Paul in 1 cor 15 in tetms of all thongs being put under Christ.
One of the passages that speaks most clearly and strongly about the role of the Holy Spirit in our understanding is 1 Corinthians 2:1-16. Paul makes clear that everything from the basic message of the gospel, to the deepest theological truths, is bound up with the active work of the Holy Spirit because the Spirit of God alone comprehends the thoughts of God (1 Cor. 2:11). The difference between those who truly understand the Bible’s teachings and those who do not isn’t based on education, skill set, or intelligence. It’s a spiritual matter. The Spirit reveals, instructs, and enables us to apply the beautiful and mysterious teachings of Scripture to our own lives. Why not follow the instructions in the bible pastor when it comes to interpretation? Man tends to complicate and overthink but the Holy Spirit doesn't.
Hey pastor Steve if a pastor doesn't bring it up in church does it really mean he doesn't have the courage . What if he just doesn't think it's worth breaking up the unity . For example I'm Oneness but don't believe in Woman Pastors but unfortunately mostly all Oneness like UPC and WPF allow it . Am I not showing courage by just accepting it even though I disagree . I'm not making excuses I just would like to here your opinion on that . Like when should we just accept what the majority says to keep fellowship just because we want unity . Like I said I'm strongly against women Pastors but attend UPCI and WPF because I'm oneness . I don't think it's cowardice. Whats your thoughts , God bless you and your family always praying for you all
“I praise you because you always remember me and follow the teachings that I have handed on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is supreme over every man, the husband is supreme over his wife, and God is supreme over Christ. So a man who prays or proclaims God's message in public worship with his skull covered disgraces Christ. And any woman who prays or proclaims God's message in public worship with nothing on her skull disgraces her husband; there is no difference between her and a woman whose head hair has been shaved. If the woman does not cover her hair, she might as well shave clean her head hair. And since it is a shameful thing for a woman to shave clean her head hair or cut her hair like a man should, she should cover her skull cap. A man has no need to cover his skull cap, because he reflects the image and glory of God. But woman reflects the glory of man; for man was not created from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for woman's sake, but woman was created for man's sake. On account of the angels, then, a woman should have a covering over her skull cap to show that she is under her husband's authority. In our life in the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman was made from man, in the same way man is born of woman; and it is God who brings everything into existence. Judge for yourselves whether it is proper for a woman to pray to God in public worship with nothing on her skull cap. Why, nature itself teaches you that long hair on a man is a disgrace, but on a woman it is a thing of beauty. Her long hair has been given her to serve as a sexually appealing hood for her husband. But if anyone wants to argue about it, all I have to say is that neither we nor the churches of God have any other custom in worship.” (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)
Ephesians 6:17 (KJV) 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: Christ over your head. 1 Corinthians 11:9 (KJV) 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. Matthew 24:38 (KJV) 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
I wouldn't go too far with the Mennonites and Amish women, although it is nice to see that they keep their hair long (though you can't tell behind the veils they wear) and wear dresses they are still stuck in a cult and that we ought to pray for them to be free from their religion.
This entire passage is talking about a physical covering, a literal veil, on the woman's head. She can't put on or take off her hair when she's prophesying/praying, so it's a literal covering. Nowhere in the passage does it even say she can't cut her hair. This always used to confuse me when I started attending Apostolic churches. Even historically women wore veils and hats to church. It wasn't until the rise of the feminist movement that they stopped doing so. I mean, simple Bible study proves this is what that passage is talking about. So I genuinely don't understand how people can read this and think women can't ever cut their hair. Long hair is beautiful and yes it's a woman's glory, but it's adding to scripture to demand she never cut it.
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
Angels as the seraphim protected the tree of life( the divine sexual energy) with the flaming sword...the tree of life is the redeemed penis of the masculine energy..
I think there is waaay too much emphasis on this subject in the UPCI. It’s bad theology to base a certain doctrine on one passage of scripture and be dogmatic about it, to the point of it being like rules you have to keep. I think the UPCI is way off on teaching this. It’s hard to understand if you are in the culture of the UPCI, but stepping outside that culture can give a person a more balanced view. God did not call those of us who have the Holy Ghost to bondage, but to freedom in the Lord. The law is written on our hearts, and we listen to the Lord. And, yes, I have long hair.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa I read back through my comment and it sounds pretty dogmatic itself, lol. Sorry, I have just done a lot of study in Galatians, Romans, Hebrews about grace and Judaizers bringing the law back on Christians. When I was in the UPCI, there was so much emphasis on the outward appearance, mainly for women, it felt like bondage, and I still think it is. The thing is, when you have “holiness standards”, it mostly takes away the need for someone to seek God for themselves about these subjects because, if they are following “the rules”, they are good! There is so much room for carnality of spirit. In the church I attend now, the people are generally much more spiritually minded than those I found in the UPCI. It is a Pentecostal church, but there is no emphasis on outward appearance, only emphasis on inward holiness. Once leaving the UPCI, it was apparent how much of an idol the outward appearance of women was in the general attitude of the people, and I didn’t go to churches where holiness standards were preached a lot. If you “allow” the people to pray and seek God for themselves, and encourage them to do so, I think you end up with a more pure and holy people. I’m sure you’ll never leave the UPCI, so it would be hard for you to see the difference in the culture objectively. It’s like the difference in the Jewish people of Jesus’ day. He said in the Sermon on the Mount, Moses said to not commit adultery, but I say if a man lusts after a woman he has committed adultery already in his heart. He was calling us to a higher standard than laws written on tablets of stone. He was calling us to a relationship with a holy God, who alone can make us holy! Outside standards and rules can never do what Jesus can do in a heart, and the heart is what God is after. God bless! I am striving every day for a closer walk with the Lord and battling the devil and my flesh to get there!
Praise the Lord! You know we call things bad theology at times without putting things in perspective - and once I started do that, it helped me understand so much and set me free from bondage I didn’t even know I was in. What I mean with that, is we seemingly need to overemphasize things nowadays, like outward appearance, because it has taken a place in society and the church that has never existed before. Example: When my grandma was a small child (she never was and unfortunately still isn’t a Christian) she had uncut, long hair, like all girls. Hair dressers for females had just became a thing in her days, and she had her hair cut as a teen, which she has it short to this day. In other words this topic hair seems so weird to discuss in our times, but until 100 years ago cutting it was not the social norm. Yes, it existed to some extent, e.g. in N.T. days for Greek God worship and maybe even some fad of only the wealthy. The same with what we wear and sex distinction. We see where we are in society now, brushing off outward appearance as minimal and not necessary. Just within the last 20-30 years (at least my experience and I did not grow up apostolic) church has lost so much of the fear of God. Do we really see the churches stronger and with more power, now that we are free to look like and wear whatever they want? (Ponder on this: did it really take the church 2000 years to realize outward holiness doesn’t matter? And I’m saying this ironically, but with respect) Not at all. BUT I do want to say this does not excuse a church/people in the church that appear holy on the outside to be nasty in the inside. Which I have experienced as well. And I think thats what gives a bad rep to holiness/apostolic churches. Social media isn’t helping 😅 A revival of love is needed!!! Many blessings!!! May God continue to lead and guide you!!
@@jsn4him368 I appreciate the spirit in which you replied to my comments! I understand where you’re coming from. I also believe the Lord is capable of convicting each of us in EVERY area of our lives. He wants a close, submitted relationship with His children. When we emphasize any aspect of our lives and call a certain standard “holy”, we remove the ability for the Lord to convict us about that aspect of our lives. I have seen many apostolic women dress ostentatiously or provocatively while still following the “holiness standards” and I’m sure you have too. I’ve always thought it was funny how the apostolic church picked the 1940s to be the standard of “holy” dress for women. Why not pick the standard from the 1890s? Any woman showing her ankle back then was considered scandalous and a loose woman! Why not pick the standard of the burka? That way everything is covered up. You see, it’s all somewhat relative. That’s why Jesus wants our hearts, we are really bad at making rules for other people. And it is just bondage to tell someone else they should live by my convictions and the way I interpret scripture. I wish you well! May we all continue to grow in the Lord and keep surrendering our hearts and listen to that still, small voice.
It's plain and simple it regards to covering your literal hair as symbol of submission to your husband and a protection against the unseen realm of Angels of Gen.6. Why do you disregard Gen.6 .and don't want to believe?,the result are already in the bible Giants , Anakims, Goliath.
The most common mistake is to assume that Nephthalim (aka Giants) to mean tall men or that the “sons of God” means angels and that that angels took wives and as a result produced some hybrid of men and angels that had caused tall men to be born aka giants. But the surrounding verses give a different conclusion to this idea. First of all Genesis 6 doesn’t use the word angels. If you think that the sons of God were angels then you are not considering Hebrews 1 which states: For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father " ? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son" ? Meaning he never said that any of the angels were his sons so that kills that theory. As for the verses in Genesis 6 it states in the first verse that MEN began to multiply on the earth NOT hybrids (but MEN) and that the men had fair-looking daughters in verse two, of which were noticed by the sons of God. Given that believers or followers of God are also described as “sons” we can logically conclude that they are referring to those who chose to follow God. Another clue is that they took from these women, WIVES. So let’s paint a picture for a moment if they were angels. To take someone to wife must mean that they LIVED in a matrimonial household. If it were a one-night stand I think it would have said so. Therefore, are we to imagine that certain angels with the powers they possess married human women who then had to plow the field, tend the animals, raise the children, etc? Sounds very unlikely. Verse 3 already shows something of God’s displeasure limiting men’s time on earth and that his spirit would not always strive with man. And why so it could be because the sons of God should have chosen from their own rank or group as opposed to those who are the daughters of men. But that of course is debatable. Verse 4 is where we read about giants but if we read the rest of the passage it keeps describing these men as those who “BECAME mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Meaning it took time for them to become legends or mighty or renowned. Not due to being a tall hybrid of man and angels. Also, since we all know that we can use the words to describe someone as renowned or great by using the word “giant” (e.g. “he was a giant among men”) it would seem to fit perfectly with the rest of the words making this same description. God continues to reveal his displeasure in that MEN are wicked all the time in verse 5 and states he repented making man in verses 6 and 7. So it would seem God was unhappy with MEN when they were choosing their wives and after more men were born from this union. But if there were male angels taking women as wives then shouldn’t they and only the women be punished and not all men? Therefore, the logical conclusion is that they are referring to certain men regarded as the sons of God and that the word giants mean someone great or renown. Therefore we cannot tie Genesis 6 to this small phrase about angels. If angels are ministering spirits then why not assume the most obvious that they are constantly watching and one ought to act accordingly as they would testify against you.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Please explain if they are normal people how come they produce giants such as king OG of Bashan who are about bet .9 to 13 feet tall , was destroyed by Moses? as well as the other giants ,Anakims etch. Why are those giants was commandment by YHWH to be killed.?
@@Guez8090 They did not produce "giants" The Bible says they produced men of renown. It says they became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. You assume that just because some men were very tall they were some kind of hybrid or angels and women. Who ever said that the imaginary story of hybrids results in tall people? You have not establish any truth or connection to this theory. Jesus already told you that angels do not marry.... you should obey him. God is a god of righteousness. He isn't out there wanting to kill people simply because of their height.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter hahaha be sure you've done your research fully.Why would the most High command Israel to kill them..God would not order them to be killed just to get their land.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter you said it.God would not ordered them to be killed just bec.of their height,that is if theiy are pure blooded human..And of course angels can never marry bec.all of them are man.There is no angel that is a woman .That's why it emphasize sons of God AND daughters of men..
Thank you for clearing that up!
No one in the early Church interpreted 1 Corinthians 11 as speaking about women not cutting their hair as being their head covering. They understood this to be a veil, and prior to about 1950, there were virtually no Christian women who went to Church with uncovered heads.
The King James Version provides a very literal translation of the verse in question:
"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."
Before we get to what it means that a woman should cover her head "because of the angels" we should first consider what it means for a woman to have "power" on her head. Most modern translations follow the interpretation found in the King James Version's margin notes, and add some words that are not explicitly in the original in order to provide a clearer meaning:
"For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels" (NKJV).
This is consistent with the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom. And what this means specifically is that it is a symbol that the woman is under the authority of her husband.
So why should a woman wear a head covering "because of the angels"? There are four interpretations of this.
1. Tertullian interpreted this to refer to angels being tempted by the daughters of men, but this interpretation hinges on his interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4, which was rejected by most of the Fathers of the Church.
2. Ambrosiaster interpreted the angels as a reference to bishops, based on an interpretation some give to the angels mention in conjunction with the seven Churches in Revelation chapters 2 and 3):
"The veil signifies power, and the angels are bishops, as it says in the Revelation of John, where, because they are men, they are criticized for not rebuking the people, though good behavior on their part is also praised" (Ancient Christian Texts: Commentaries on Romans and 1-2 Corinthians, Ambrosiaster, translated and edited by Gerald L. Bray (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2009) p. 143).p. 172).
3. St. Cyril of Alexandria interpreted this to mean that the angels are offended by women who are disobedient, and show disregard for this practice:
4. Blessed Theodoret interprets this to mean that women who disregard this practice offend the guardian angels of the men who might be distracted in prayer by their lack of modesty; and their own guardian angels as well:
"By authority he referred to the covering, as it is to say, Let her show her subjection by covering herself, and not least for the sake of the angels, who are set over human beings and entrusted with their care. Likewise also in acts, "It is not he, but his angel" [Acts 12:15]; and the Lord, "See that you do not despise one of these little ones who believe in me: Amen I say to you, their angels continually look upon the face of my Father in heaven" [Matthew 18:10] ( (Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 1, trans. Robert Charles Hill, (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 205).
The interpretations of St. Cyril and Blessed Theodoret are by no means mutually exclusive, and I think together, they make the best sense of this verse.
The King James translators even said it themselves with their alternate translation in the margin of verse 10. "That is, a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband." Also in verse 15 they provide the alternate of "Or, veil." for covering.
It is also incoherent to make it about hair since then it would read: 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with *shorn hair* dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be *shorn,* let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be *not shorn.*
Praise the Lord! I do understand where you’re coming from, as the same could be said, why does he mention hair then, if it’s not about hair…
But I’m curious to know how you then interpret verse 15.
When reading in Greek we see it does not say: long (adjective) hair (noun). But it’s a verb which means: to let hair grow out.
It continues and actually states for the first time the noun used for “covering”: her hair is given her for a veil/covering/clothe/mantle (noun).
How do you put it then, that an additional veil is needed, if her hair is given as such?
It seems to be that Verse 15 is the answer to all the “confusing verses” before that. (I carefully say that, but many scholars agree this chapter is really not a easy one.)
God bless!
PS: I just noticed I am commenting on the thoughts of the initial comment AND the first comment of that comment😂. I thought it came from the same person.
@jsn4him368 the Early Church Fathers were mostly Greek speaking people, and none of them interpret this passage as saying that long hair is the covering St. Paul is talking about. The only debate (such as it was) was whether unmarried women needed to cover their head with a veil or not...and the answer was that they did.
@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 Thank you for your reply! Just to understand… you are saying what Paul wrote in this sentence doesn’t really matter. But more weight is put on what the early church fathers, who lived after Paul, said and believed?
And this isn’t an attack, I’m just seeing, if I understood correctly what you wrote, since to me Paul wrote in very clear Greek, that the hair was given as a covering.
@@jsn4him368 I am not saying that what St. Paul wrote doesn't matter. I am saying it is clear from the text itself, as well as from the history of the interpretation of the text that when St. Paul says women should cover their heads in Church, he was speaking of a veil, and not long hair... which women normally had back then without anyone having to instruct them to have long hair.
On point with regards on having a long hair and the spiritual significance of it to honor the head of the woman w/c is the man and ultimately God as the head of Christ.
There's a deeper meaning and reason behind it that will play part in the judgement day but at the time he is preaching to the Corinthians he is stating the basics
The King James translators even said it themselves with their alternate translation in the margin of verse 10. "That is, a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband." Also in verse 15 they provide the alternate of "Or, veil." for covering.
It is also incoherent to make it about hair since then it would read: 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with shorn hair dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be shorn, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be not shorn.
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
@@robertmiller812 There are many problems with what you said, and I don't have the time to address them, but have you ever read the Fathers? The Bible didn't drop out of space, and the earliest Christians didn't see it like you did, including the disciples of the Apostle John. The Church had the view that it was veils for over 1900 years and somehow we just figured out what it meant the same time as feminism by coincidence?
Also worth noting is if you were in fact correct, then men must be bald since it doesn't say "less covered" it says "uncovered" If hair is the covering, then men need to shave their head.
Seriously, where do you think the idea of men taking their hats off when in church or doing other solemn things like pledging to the flag came from?
@@DrGero15 Why would you want me to put aside the Word of God to believe in the fallacy of men which you generically write as “the Fathers?” Am I supposed to guess who you are referring to? You seem to prefer the words of men rather than the words of God.
If you had more respect to the words of God than men then you would know that “the Church” that you refer to (which I do not who are you including) who followed this false doctrine were wrong for years. Because the Bible ALREADY gave us an example of how God’s people were wrong about a doctrine for centuries. You should read up on Acts 7:47-52, where God’s people thought it was ok to built temples for years when God did not want that and was evidently upset. So you really need to stop trying to find outside sources to follow this false doctrine. God even says that HIS people are destroyed due to lack of knowledge Hosea 4:6.
Doctrine is confirmed by the scriptures not by how long or how many people followed a doctrine. Seriously read 2 Timothy 3:16-17
You stated that “If hair is the covering, then men need to shave their head.” This shows that you do not understand the scriptures clearly you are referring to verse 4 and for some reason you think that I am saying the “uncovered” means to be bald, when I made no such definition.
If a woman is supposed to cover her head with LONG hair (aka covered) then what is the obvious understanding when it says a man is supposed to be uncovered? That he should have SHORT hair. Instead you want to put words in my mouth that I NEVER stated.
You should have more respect to the Word of God instead of brushing aside and following after theories and man-made church traditions or especially like how you mentioned SOME take their hats off during solemn moments as if that were some kind of proof. This made me really sad to read how much you cling to non-biblical and unprovable traditions rather than God’s holy words.
@@robertmiller812 So are you! The difference is my tradition is almost two thousand years older. You assume you have some knowledge and are better than Billions of Christians over thousands of years. I couldn't be that prideful. You are misunderstanding the text or I wouldn't even bother bring up history. The men who translated the AV understood it to be referring to veiling, they put it in the chapter summery and marginal notes. Do you really think you know more about what it means than those who learned directly from St. John the Revelator?
Where does it say short? It says Covered and Uncovered. If covered is hair than uncovered is no hair. You are arguing for covered and less covered which is added subjectivity to the objective words on the page. What counts as long? How many inches? Sounds like to be safe and make sure we are obeying we need woman to never cut their hair and for men to cut all of it off. What if in God's mind, long is over 1/4 inch? Then most men are in sin. What if long is 48 inches? Then some women can't even grow long hair and no men are ever in sin even if they grow their hair out.
You need to read all of Acts 7 since you are getting lost in the weeds and coming up with weird doctrine by mixing words from two different paragraphs and mistaking a quote from Isaiah as a condemnation. God had no issue with the Temple they built. His problem with them is in the last half of the sentence you cut in two in your citation (which is bolded below), the last line in Stephens discourse "who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it."
Acts 7:37-53 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: to whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.
Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. *But Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things?
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers* : who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
@@robertmiller812 So are you! The difference is my tradition is almost two thousand years older. You assume you have some knowledge and are better than Billions of Christians over thousands of years. I couldn't be that prideful. You are misunderstanding the text or I wouldn't even bother bring up history. The men who translated the AV understood it to be referring to veiling, they put it in the chapter summery and marginal notes. Do you really think you know more about what it means than those who learned directly from St. John the Revelator?
Where does it say short? It says Covered and Uncovered. If covered is hair than uncovered is no hair. You are arguing for covered and less covered which is added subjectivity to the objective words on the page. What counts as long? How many inches? Sounds like to be safe and make sure we are obeying we need woman to never cut their hair and for men to cut all of it off. What if in God's mind, long is over 1/4 inch? Then most men are in sin. What if long is 48 inches? Then some women can't even grow long hair and no men are ever in sin even if they grow their hair out.
You need to read all of Acts 7 since you are getting lost in the weeds and coming up with weird doctrine by mixing words from two different paragraphs and mistaking a quote from Isaiah as a condemnation. God had no issue with the Temple they built. His problem with them is in the last half of the sentence you cut in two in your citation (which is bolded below), the last line in Stephens discourse "who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it."
Acts 7:37-53 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: to whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.
Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. *But Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things?*
*Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:* who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
Because of the angels should be part of the following sentence. So verse 11 becomes
Nevertheless, because of the angels, neither woman without man nor man without woman.
In 1 Cor 11:2-16 Paul is giving us his authoritative interpretation of Genesis 1 "image of God" and Genesis 2 the creation of woman out of man. The image of God entails the 2 stage creation of Adam, as a man and then woman out of him. This is what Paul is referring to with "man is the ..glory of God" and "woman is the glory of man". Together they complete Adam as the image of God.
Now, the reference to angels is from Psalm 8 which is a creation psalm outlining the order of creation and all reality. The order throughout all reality from top to bottom is an hierarchical order in Psalm 8. Paul is using the Psalm 8 hierarchical order of reality as a grid when he discusses Gen 1 and 2. His argument and conclusion is that man is the head of woman.
However, he knows that Psalm 8 only mentions mankind. It does not delineate mankind into man and woman as Gen 2 does.
So, verse 11 nevertheless, because of the angels, ie because in psalm 8, netther woman without man nor man without woman.
So it is 😢 Paul saying he recognises Psalm 8 does not mention man andcwoman.
The next verse, verse 12, then explains why it is okay for Psalm 8 to just mention mankind.
Verse 12 for, in the Lord, just as woman out of man, so also man through woman.
Woman out of man is a repetition of what Paul said earlier from Gen 2.
In the Lord, is telling us that Christ is the creator of man and woman as detailed in Gen 2. Just as Christ is the creator of the fact that every man is born from a woman. The two things together tells us that Christ had made us, man and woman, to be in this together, albeit with different tasks. Just as verse 11 has said that the psalmist expresses us being together as mankind.
Now, how do we know that "in the Lord" refers to Christ as our creator.
We know it because back in chapter 8:6 of 1 corinthians it told us that "one Lord, Jesus Christ through whom are all things...". That this is what "in the Lord" is referring to is confirmed by the last part of 1 cor 11:12c "and all things out of God (presumably God the Father)" which is the same as what was said about God the Father in 1 cor 8:6 "one God the Father out of whom all things".
So 1 cor 11 including the issue of covering or not covering one head and including verse 3 about headship of woman and man and Christ, is all about examining and applying 1 Cor 8:6 regarding the eternal relationship of God the Father to Christ Jesus the Lord.
So, 1 cor 11:3 sums up the application of the hierarchical order of reality grid of Psalm 8 to man and woman, and to Christ and man, and to God the Father and Christ thd Lord. All 3 are hierarchical relationships. All 3 image the other just like Gen 2 shows us how the building of woman out of man makes Adam the image of God.
Furgher clarification. Why is it psalm 8? Paul uses the terms honor, glory, angels and he is discussing order. Psalm 8 is a creation psalm mentioning all these. It is also used again by Paul in 1 cor 15 in tetms of all thongs being put under Christ.
Hey brother, could you do a video on Luke 16:9?
I’ll try.
One of the passages that speaks most clearly and strongly about the role of the Holy Spirit in our understanding is 1 Corinthians 2:1-16. Paul makes clear that everything from the basic message of the gospel, to the deepest theological truths, is bound up with the active work of the Holy Spirit because the Spirit of God alone comprehends the thoughts of God (1 Cor. 2:11). The difference between those who truly understand the Bible’s teachings and those who do not isn’t based on education, skill set, or intelligence. It’s a spiritual matter. The Spirit reveals, instructs, and enables us to apply the beautiful and mysterious teachings of Scripture to our own lives. Why not follow the instructions in the bible pastor when it comes to interpretation? Man tends to complicate and overthink but the Holy Spirit doesn't.
I agree
Hey pastor Steve if a pastor doesn't bring it up in church does it really mean he doesn't have the courage . What if he just doesn't think it's worth breaking up the unity . For example I'm Oneness but don't believe in Woman Pastors but unfortunately mostly all Oneness like UPC and WPF allow it . Am I not showing courage by just accepting it even though I disagree . I'm not making excuses I just would like to here your opinion on that . Like when should we just accept what the majority says to keep fellowship just because we want unity . Like I said I'm strongly against women Pastors but attend UPCI and WPF because I'm oneness . I don't think it's cowardice. Whats your thoughts , God bless you and your family always praying for you all
Yes, Romans 14 comes into play there, no doubt about it.
“I praise you because you always remember me and follow the teachings that I have handed on to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is supreme over every man, the husband is supreme over his wife, and God is supreme over Christ. So a man who prays or proclaims God's message in public worship with his skull covered disgraces Christ. And any woman who prays or proclaims God's message in public worship with nothing on her skull disgraces her husband; there is no difference between her and a woman whose head hair has been shaved. If the woman does not cover her hair, she might as well shave clean her head hair. And since it is a shameful thing for a woman to shave clean her head hair or cut her hair like a man should, she should cover her skull cap. A man has no need to cover his skull cap, because he reflects the image and glory of God. But woman reflects the glory of man; for man was not created from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for woman's sake, but woman was created for man's sake. On account of the angels, then, a woman should have a covering over her skull cap to show that she is under her husband's authority. In our life in the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman was made from man, in the same way man is born of woman; and it is God who brings everything into existence. Judge for yourselves whether it is proper for a woman to pray to God in public worship with nothing on her skull cap. Why, nature itself teaches you that long hair on a man is a disgrace, but on a woman it is a thing of beauty. Her long hair has been given her to serve as a sexually appealing hood for her husband. But if anyone wants to argue about it, all I have to say is that neither we nor the churches of God have any other custom in worship.” (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)
Ephesians 6:17 (KJV)
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Christ over your head.
1 Corinthians 11:9 (KJV)
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Matthew 24:38 (KJV)
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Take as literal.Don't make difficult.
Long hair and long dresses on women is rare to see today. God bless the Mennonite and Amish women...
I wouldn't go too far with the Mennonites and Amish women, although it is nice to see that they keep their hair long (though you can't tell behind the veils they wear) and wear dresses they are still stuck in a cult and that we ought to pray for them to be free from their religion.
This entire passage is talking about a physical covering, a literal veil, on the woman's head. She can't put on or take off her hair when she's prophesying/praying, so it's a literal covering. Nowhere in the passage does it even say she can't cut her hair. This always used to confuse me when I started attending Apostolic churches. Even historically women wore veils and hats to church. It wasn't until the rise of the feminist movement that they stopped doing so. I mean, simple Bible study proves this is what that passage is talking about. So I genuinely don't understand how people can read this and think women can't ever cut their hair. Long hair is beautiful and yes it's a woman's glory, but it's adding to scripture to demand she never cut it.
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
Not really that difficult. Hear dr Martin Lloyd Jones on this.
I do like Jones
Angels as the seraphim protected the tree of life( the divine sexual energy) with the flaming sword...the tree of life is the redeemed penis of the masculine energy..
I think there is waaay too much emphasis on this subject in the UPCI. It’s bad theology to base a certain doctrine on one passage of scripture and be dogmatic about it, to the point of it being like rules you have to keep. I think the UPCI is way off on teaching this. It’s hard to understand if you are in the culture of the UPCI, but stepping outside that culture can give a person a more balanced view. God did not call those of us who have the Holy Ghost to bondage, but to freedom in the Lord. The law is written on our hearts, and we listen to the Lord. And, yes, I have long hair.
I have always certainly respected your perspective when you comment. You seem to have a very good walk with the LORD.
@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa I read back through my comment and it sounds pretty dogmatic itself, lol. Sorry, I have just done a lot of study in Galatians, Romans, Hebrews about grace and Judaizers bringing the law back on Christians. When I was in the UPCI, there was so much emphasis on the outward appearance, mainly for women, it felt like bondage, and I still think it is. The thing is, when you have “holiness standards”, it mostly takes away the need for someone to seek God for themselves about these subjects because, if they are following “the rules”, they are good! There is so much room for carnality of spirit. In the church I attend now, the people are generally much more spiritually minded than those I found in the UPCI. It is a Pentecostal church, but there is no emphasis on outward appearance, only emphasis on inward holiness. Once leaving the UPCI, it was apparent how much of an idol the outward appearance of women was in the general attitude of the people, and I didn’t go to churches where holiness standards were preached a lot. If you “allow” the people to pray and seek God for themselves, and encourage them to do so, I think you end up with a more pure and holy people. I’m sure you’ll never leave the UPCI, so it would be hard for you to see the difference in the culture objectively. It’s like the difference in the Jewish people of Jesus’ day. He said in the Sermon on the Mount, Moses said to not commit adultery, but I say if a man lusts after a woman he has committed adultery already in his heart. He was calling us to a higher standard than laws written on tablets of stone. He was calling us to a relationship with a holy God, who alone can make us holy! Outside standards and rules can never do what Jesus can do in a heart, and the heart is what God is after. God bless! I am striving every day for a closer walk with the Lord and battling the devil and my flesh to get there!
Praise the Lord! You know we call things bad theology at times without putting things in perspective - and once I started do that, it helped me understand so much and set me free from bondage I didn’t even know I was in.
What I mean with that, is we seemingly need to overemphasize things nowadays, like outward appearance, because it has taken a place in society and the church that has never existed before.
Example: When my grandma was a small child (she never was and unfortunately still isn’t a Christian) she had uncut, long hair, like all girls. Hair dressers for females had just became a thing in her days, and she had her hair cut as a teen, which she has it short to this day.
In other words this topic hair seems so weird to discuss in our times, but until 100 years ago cutting it was not the social norm. Yes, it existed to some extent, e.g. in N.T. days for Greek God worship and maybe even some fad of only the wealthy.
The same with what we wear and sex distinction. We see where we are in society now, brushing off outward appearance as minimal and not necessary. Just within the last 20-30 years (at least my experience and I did not grow up apostolic) church has lost so much of the fear of God.
Do we really see the churches stronger and with more power, now that we are free to look like and wear whatever they want? (Ponder on this: did it really take the church 2000 years to realize outward holiness doesn’t matter? And I’m saying this ironically, but with respect)
Not at all.
BUT I do want to say this does not excuse a church/people in the church that appear holy on the outside to be nasty in the inside. Which I have experienced as well. And I think thats what gives a bad rep to holiness/apostolic churches. Social media isn’t helping 😅
A revival of love is needed!!!
Many blessings!!! May God continue to lead and guide you!!
@@jsn4him368 I appreciate the spirit in which you replied to my comments! I understand where you’re coming from. I also believe the Lord is capable of convicting each of us in EVERY area of our lives. He wants a close, submitted relationship with His children. When we emphasize any aspect of our lives and call a certain standard “holy”, we remove the ability for the Lord to convict us about that aspect of our lives. I have seen many apostolic women dress ostentatiously or provocatively while still following the “holiness standards” and I’m sure you have too. I’ve always thought it was funny how the apostolic church picked the 1940s to be the standard of “holy” dress for women. Why not pick the standard from the 1890s? Any woman showing her ankle back then was considered scandalous and a loose woman! Why not pick the standard of the burka? That way everything is covered up. You see, it’s all somewhat relative. That’s why Jesus wants our hearts, we are really bad at making rules for other people. And it is just bondage to tell someone else they should live by my convictions and the way I interpret scripture. I wish you well! May we all continue to grow in the Lord and keep surrendering our hearts and listen to that still, small voice.
Yes, is interesting to notice that important doctrines are repeated in various parts if Scripture. This is only mentioned here.
It's plain and simple it regards to covering your literal hair as symbol of submission to your husband and a protection against the unseen realm of Angels of Gen.6. Why do you disregard Gen.6 .and don't want to believe?,the result are already in the bible Giants , Anakims, Goliath.
The most common mistake is to assume that Nephthalim (aka Giants) to mean tall men or that the “sons of God” means angels and that that angels took wives and as a result produced some hybrid of men and angels that had caused tall men to be born aka giants. But the surrounding verses give a different conclusion to this idea.
First of all Genesis 6 doesn’t use the word angels. If you think that the sons of God were angels then you are not considering Hebrews 1 which states:
For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father " ? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son" ?
Meaning he never said that any of the angels were his sons so that kills that theory.
As for the verses in Genesis 6 it states in the first verse that MEN began to multiply on the earth NOT hybrids (but MEN) and that the men had fair-looking daughters in verse two, of which were noticed by the sons of God. Given that believers or followers of God are also described as “sons” we can logically conclude that they are referring to those who chose to follow God.
Another clue is that they took from these women, WIVES. So let’s paint a picture for a moment if they were angels. To take someone to wife must mean that they LIVED in a matrimonial household. If it were a one-night stand I think it would have said so. Therefore, are we to imagine that certain angels with the powers they possess married human women who then had to plow the field, tend the animals, raise the children, etc? Sounds very unlikely. Verse 3 already shows something of God’s displeasure limiting men’s time on earth and that his spirit would not always strive with man. And why so it could be because the sons of God should have chosen from their own rank or group as opposed to those who are the daughters of men. But that of course is debatable. Verse 4 is where we read about giants but if we read the rest of the passage it keeps describing these men as those who “BECAME mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Meaning it took time for them to become legends or mighty or renowned. Not due to being a tall hybrid of man and angels. Also, since we all know that we can use the words to describe someone as renowned or great by using the word “giant” (e.g. “he was a giant among men”) it would seem to fit perfectly with the rest of the words making this same description. God continues to reveal his displeasure in that MEN are wicked all the time in verse 5 and states he repented making man in verses 6 and 7.
So it would seem God was unhappy with MEN when they were choosing their wives and after more men were born from this union. But if there were male angels taking women as wives then shouldn’t they and only the women be punished and not all men? Therefore, the logical conclusion is that they are referring to certain men regarded as the sons of God and that the word giants mean someone great or renown.
Therefore we cannot tie Genesis 6 to this small phrase about angels. If angels are ministering spirits then why not assume the most obvious that they are constantly watching and one ought to act accordingly as they would testify against you.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Please explain if they are normal people how come they produce giants such as king OG of Bashan who are about bet .9 to 13 feet tall , was destroyed by Moses? as well as the other giants ,Anakims etch. Why are those giants was commandment by YHWH to be killed.?
@@Guez8090 They did not produce "giants" The Bible says they produced men of renown. It says they became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. You assume that just because some men were very tall they were some kind of hybrid or angels and women. Who ever said that the imaginary story of hybrids results in tall people? You have not establish any truth or connection to this theory. Jesus already told you that angels do not marry.... you should obey him. God is a god of righteousness. He isn't out there wanting to kill people simply because of their height.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter hahaha be sure you've done your research fully.Why would the most High command Israel to kill them..God would not order them to be killed just to get their land.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter you said it.God would not ordered them to be killed just bec.of their height,that is if theiy are pure blooded human..And of course angels can never marry bec.all of them are man.There is no angel that is a woman .That's why it emphasize sons of God AND daughters of men..
Who cares ??? Why would you listen to Paul ??? Is he The Messiah or is Yeshua ???