We have a follow up video that answers some of your questions that you posted since this video came out.. I have new audio from Dr. Oster where he gives some of the background and follows it up with practical implications for today! Here is it - th-cam.com/video/cpIyqPw0v20/w-d-xo.html
YOU have to teach out of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Christ is that authority, this passage is so simple, its speaking spiritual. How can anyone listen to this?? Why wont anyone listen, it is not a custom, not cultural, just shows that people don't study from the sources rather they would study from the product only. The head covered has zero to do with anything on her head or hair, the covering is Yeshua messiah, its talking about the fallen angels as it was in the days of Noah Jesus spoke of in the gospels, when the angels seduced the daughters of men, the (sons of God) that brought about the nephilim, naphi in the Hebrew, to keep their heads covered because they're coming back and the ministering spirits are watching, so are the fallen angels who were with Satan during his overthrow. Rev. 12 when Micheal kicks Satan out of heaven. The man to not have long hair is speaking that it would be a perverted act, angel and man intimately Paul said no, they're coming back for the daughters of men as Jesus said as part of how it was in the days of Noah, and will be and people are listening down these rabbit holes thinking it had to do with 💇 HAIR!!!!! 🤯😔 Its in the Bible, Yeshua told us all things. No excuse but to start today.
@@YeshuaMessiah777 What you said is very interesting, but the way you explained it is very confusing. Maybe English isn't your first language, not trying to sound insulting, I just wish it was explained better. I really want to understand this, do you have some reference materials you can point me to? I'd like to dive deeper into this. Thank you
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
It is refreshing that he pointed out that men also needed to change their behavior. I came from a background where my first marriage (now remarried 33 years) I was very suppressed under a narcissistic husband. So the word "submission" triggered me. But now in the last few years, I understand that if a husband loves his wife properly and she feels protected and does not feel used, she would be willing to submit to his loving, protective leadership.
Amen to that C! If you read Ephesians 5 you see submission starts off as mutual "Submit one to each other" and then goes wife to husband and then goes to the husband to die to self for the wife.
That was a really, really good commentary on head covering in the church. I thank God for making sure you preserved this video. May you keep the peace of God and His grace with you always.😊
I wear a veil when I'm praying, reading the Holy Bible and in church, to honour Jesus Christ our loving Saviour. Also husband is the head of the family .
We have a follow up video. I have new audio from Dr. Oster where he gives some of the background and follows it up with practical implications for today! Here is it - th-cam.com/video/cpIyqPw0v20/w-d-xo.html
Do you wear a veil when you're on the road, or in danger? Veil is not for prayer. Paul resorts to prayer and prophesy to demonstrate how improper it looks for an uncovered women to be before the Lord, asking for something, while being in defiance to His will.
I read this passage this morning, and after many years of reading, moving on and excepting it at face value, it hit me. Something other than the traditionally excepted view on this chapter was shouting at me to look further and deeper into this passage. This was very helpful and I'll need to look into it even further. Thanx for uploading this.
I feel that the cultural background and Roman examples are instructive and informative. The issue that I see with his presentation Biblically is that he has implied that women have the right to take the spiritual lead in the assembled church. While at the same time asserting that the violation of this text was when male spiritual leadership was being violated. This would contradict Paul's other teaching on the subject (I Cor. 14:34-35; I Tim. 2:11-12). Since Paul isn't contradicting Paul, nor is the Holy Spirit contradicting the Holy Spirit. Clearly, women were given spiritual gifts, which were exercised only in an authorized situation. Women were to instruct other women and also children. This would only be possible with spiritual gifts since they didn't have the completed Revelation as we do today. The verses in question do not explicitly state nor imply that he was addressing a situation where women were leading the mixed assembly. Women are not inferior to men, just as Christ is not inferior to the Father (I Cor. 11:3). We are speaking of differing roles assigned by God. Another example of such is that Jesus was not permitted to be a priest while on earth. Was He inferior to Levites? No, just unauthorized under God's Law to serve in that way. Paul's message was not one that put women in role of public speaker. His instructions were to an assembly of people who were dismissing the cultural norms which honored gender roles as given by God. The cultural norms may change, but God's Will and desire does not. We must not violate the roles desired by God and assigned by Him.
I am not sure what would prohibit a woman from saying a prayer amongst other Christians. We adopted a very Catholic view of the assembly and what constitutes authority. We created roles in the assembly that aren't even in the Bible, then associated authority with things because they were roles (opening prayer, closing prayer, etc) but this isn't how the early church operated.
1 Timothy 2:13-14 forever settles the 'women authority' issue. Both reasons given in vs. 13 & 14 are eternal & can never be changed, ie, the fact that Adam was created first & that the woman first usurped God's authority in the Garden. John MacArthur calls this the 'curse of the woman' - that she has eternally been banned from having authority over man in spiritual matters.
@@williamwalker9148 I encourage you to look at how the Greek is actually written and then add context to when and where that 1 Timothy passage was written! Like you, I was once STAUNCHLY against women speaking or ANY role in the church assembly… until I for myself actually researched it and found out that view is CLEARLY wrong.
The historical context was very enlightening! After listening to this I also noticed that Paul commended the church for keeping the “traditions” that he passed on. Guessing this means that since head coverings were “traditions” they do not carry the weight of a timeless command of God?
Interesting info, thanks for sharing. I definitely agree with some of it, but I'm not sure if it takes all things into consideration. I am someone who believes head-coverings are good and necessary for modern times, and the book which helped me fully come to that conclusion was "Head Covering: A Forgotten Christian Practice for Modern Times" by Jeremy Gardiner. It's concise and also takes into account various historical research. The biggest argument for head-coverings is in vs. 8 and vs 14--Paul points back to Creation to support his argument. Jesus also points back to Creation in Matthew 19 when discussing divorce. In vs. Matthew 19:8 He basically states that God's order is superior to the cultural context of the day when He says "from the beginning this was not so" (concerning divorce). So likewise, the fact that Paul uses creation/nature to support head-coverings strongly suggests that it is not dependent on the culture of Corinth, but is a general principal/practice to be followed. This is corroborated with historical evidence--we know that because of the teaching in 1 Cor. 11 that women wore their head-covering in other places such as the churches in Egypt. The "ante-nicene fathers" attest to this, which snippets can be easily read on the topic in David Bercot's "Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" and some which I believe are present in the aforementioned book. Also, "because of the angels" in vs 10, though confusing, to me suggests it's something beyond a local custom. The "judge for yourselves" part in 1 Cor. 11 is definitely misunderstood. I believe Paul is basically saying "obviously we don't have any other practice except what I previously explained, so just accept it." Now, if what i'm saying is true, then it brings up a very important (and contentious) idea that the CoC would have to face--if women could pray and prophesy in the assembly back then, what does that mean for us today/how would that look? I have not listened to all your videos on the role of women yet, but I plan to soon. Take care, Matt.
You are right...so when we find ourselves in a Greco-Roman pagan occult setting where head coverings mean today what they did then, then we should do exactly as Paul instructed. But that is not at all what people mean today when they do head coverings and then some make it a salvation issue.
@@revolutionofordinaries you’re missing the point entirely. The statement is explicitly addressing all believers in every place. Doesn’t sound like it’s limited to Greco Roman occultists to me. And nobody is making it a salvation issue except people who are not saved.
Greetings, in Jesus’ name.. I see your comment was from 6 months ago, but could you possibly explain why Paul said when he made an end of speaking the matter, “But if any man seem to be contentious, 👉we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”👈 (1 Corinthians 11:16)
The entire civilized world practiced a full head-covering for the sake of MODESTY, not for prayer. China, India, central Asia, Assyria, Turkey, Arabia, Persia, North Africa, and all of the Mediterranean states practiced the TRUE head-covering. We made a video proving it called "Christian Women Must Wear a REAL Veil."
I want you to realize that Christ has authority over every man, a husband has authority over his wife, and God has authority over Christ. 4 Every man who covers his head when he prays or speaks what God has revealed dishonors the one who has authority over him. 5 Every woman who prays or speaks what God has revealed and has her head uncovered while she speaks dishonors the one who has authority over her. She is like the woman who has her head shaved. 6 So if a woman doesn't cover her head, she should cut off her hair. If it's a disgrace for a woman to cut off her hair or shave her head, she should cover her head. 7 A man should not cover his head. He is God's image and glory. The woman, however, is man's glory. 8 Clearly, man wasn't made from woman but woman from man. 9 Man wasn't created for woman but woman for man. 10 Therefore, a woman should wear something on her head to show she is under {someone's} authority, out of respect for the angels. 1 Cor 11:3-10 (GW)
If the bible is the ordained Word of God for all time, why do we take this passage as time relevant? It seems nothing else in the new testament can be addressed like this so why this particular topic? I’m a simple Christian and it just seems like an explaining away of what is not particularly palatable. You never see men at the pulpit covered… so why women uncovered? Just trying to make sense of it all…
Well, I would say one aspect is that we also don't follow the old law. Therefore while the Bible is timeless and we can learn from it, it doesn't mean we should practice everything written. Same thing with sacrifices.... We know of them and their uses, but no longer practice that. I'm still on the fence on head coverings. Jesus never speaks about them and it's only mentioned in one letter to Corinth. If it was of such importance like other topics you would think it would be mentioned more.
You are on the right course. People who take on the mantle of teaching God's word need to be very careful with this and every other subject inspired by God thru Paul. 1 Corinthians 11: is from God himself.
Yes to you all. I’m really trying to live an authentic life for Christ and I’m black American and need clear understanding on how to conducts myself as a woman and mother of a daughter and want to be in proper order. (Although I’m not married 😞) any help in understanding of this is only in church prayer, prophesy, and daily living. ❤️
@@SutanaMonae88 In 1st corinthians chapters 11-14 Paul is dealing with when the church has come together in one place via worship 1 Corinthians 14:23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?
If it were time sensitive, what other commands in 1 Corinthians are time sensitive? Might as well throw the whole book out of the Bible. Paul in verse 16 says “all the churches of God” that means all churches practiced this.
Yes to you all. I’m really trying to live an authentic life for Christ and I’m black American and need clear understanding on how to conducts myself as a woman and mother of a daughter and want to be in proper order. (Although I’m not married 😞) any help in understanding of this is only in church prayer, prophesy, and daily living. ❤️
Yes but it was first written to the Corinthians who were going through some very specific things. Read the letter and those things will jump out to you page after page.
I only heard the beginning. two things they ignore. one is mary wears a veil. Also the reason Paul gives in the bible is that it is because of the angels. Do we just ignore all that then ?
Amazing! I knew this about the women, but I didn’t know about the men and why they needed to uncover. I love how Paul always swam against the cultural currents on purpose, to be set apart/holy, yet the modern mainstream churches today are trying everything they can to be “culturally relevant” which basically has amounted to compromise and lukewarmness. Great video! I’d like to find more of his…
St. Paul is making the statement..... "I want you to realize that Christ has authority over every man, a husband has authority over his wife, and God has authority over Christ. 4 Every man who covers his head when he prays or speaks what God has revealed dishonors the one who has authority over him. 5 Every woman who prays or speaks what God has revealed and has her head uncovered while she speaks dishonors the one who has authority over her. She is like the woman who has her head shaved. 6 So if a woman doesn't cover her head, she should cut off her hair. If it's a disgrace for a woman to cut off her hair or shave her head, she should cover her head. 7 A man should not cover his head. He is God's image and glory. The woman, however, is man's glory. 8 Clearly, man wasn't made from woman but woman from man. 9 Man wasn't created for woman but woman for man. 10 Therefore, a woman should wear something on her head to show she is under authority, out of respect for the angels". 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 (GW)
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.
The head covering topic is one of the most discussed and debated topics all over the Churches, I found this audio clip informative considering the Roman cultural aspects, However the important point of verse 10 regarding the angels was not addressed at all, I think you shoud share your views on it and also other people's view on that specific verse. Shalom
The best I’ve heard on that subject is because the ‘angels are present as the believers worship God’ and it demonstrates to them the created order of authority that God has instituted (man is the head of the woman etc). Everything should be done in proper order (also seems very simple and fits with the context). Psalm 22:3 Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel.
@@justinmc1287 Yes it does fit the context. I also feel that we humans in the after age would judge the angels and this disorder may be a wrong standard, just a wild guess... Not sure.
Paul tells women in this statement "the why" for headcovering It's "a symbol of authority on her head" - What exactly does that statement mean? Symbol is a thing that represents or stands for something else. So what does the woman's head covering stand for? It stands for God's hierarchy of authority in His Kingdom, In His creation When a woman covers her head in prayer and her work for the Lord - She is announcing to the seen and unseen world, to principalities and powers and wicked rulers in high places and to the angels, to the minions of satan and to the devil himself, "that she has submitted herself and is under the authority of God Almighty" ---- So back off satan -hands off!!! Every woman of God, especially single women without husbands should want to wear that symbol of authority on her head - because the angels are watching, and so is everyone else in the universe! Ladies make that clear distinction you are not a woman of rebellion, jezebel's daughter, you are like Ruth who left Moab and place herself under the protection and care of Almighty God. "May the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge, reward you" Ruth 2:12-13 for your humble submission to His Word and His Authority. hope this will help women who are still trying to understand this teaching..... God bless you all.
I was sincerely Blessed by this. It describes my feelings about my own head covering. It is very personal and even though I am single and 70, I am attractive and want to live a set-apart life unto The Lord and not be a distraction anywhere but under the covering and Authority of The Holy One of Israel in The Name of Yeshua Messiah.
A symbol is the long hair covering the head. Short hair is the symbol of independence and sovereignty. Long hair is the symbol of authority over a female.
Followers of the Way practice the ridiculous Amish head cap, not the ancient veil Paul commanded women to wear. Watch our comprehensive video called "Christian Women Must Wear a REAL Veil."
This was a good teaching of the historical and cultural context of Corinthians 11. Thank you for posting it because I have never heard it before. Also, is there a part two because it seems like there might have been more to hear, and there was no mention of the application for this day and age.
Thank you SO MUCH for listening Nicole! I wish there was a part two but there isn't. I will contact Dr. Oster and see if he would be willing to do some application. Great idea!
Katherine Bushnell and “God’s Word to Women” written 100 years ago. Her scholarship is just astounding. and her study of the original languages is quite remarkable when the scripture refers to women. It takes an open mind and love for the truth and not tradition to receive it.
I’m honestly confused. Not sure if I’m missing something. The pastor explaining this passage took a lot of time to make the point that religious pagan practices included covering of heads while praying or prophesying by both men and women alike. Then wouldn’t the men Paul is referring to, who had been covering their heads, be automatically in right position presenting his authority over the women? A woman NOT covering her head while prophesying would already be showing submission of authority to man and would not need to be addressed. I agreed there is a special role men have over women in God’s design but in no way is this example consistent with the case the pastor here is making otherwise Paul would have to had to reiterate that men SHOULD cover their heads as a sign of authority over women. I always knew this passage to be related to the issue of women who had shaved their heads in worship of pagan gods and having no hair was why Paul made the argument for them to be covered. Then naturally men would have to put away the clear pagan practice of covering their head for prayer/prophesying. Paul later makes the final argument that our hair was naturally given by God as our covering anyway if that was an issue that mattered for people. I’m sadly disappointed and confused with the answer supported by these pastors. :(
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 Then why would Paul say that long hair is given to her for a covering? Why confuse? Furthermore, if the nature of head coverings points back to Adam and Eve, why didn't God give Eve a head covering? This would've eliminated any room for debate. Lastly, if the head of the woman is her husband, would this exempt single women and widows from having to cover? They can't disgrace a head that isn't there.
I have a better understanding of the scripture. Especially as it relates to the different nationalities that were in the churches at Corinth and the pagan style of worship they came with and practice. Thanks sir, God richly bless you.
I believe that Jewish men had covering on their head when they worshipped, and the Jews who became Christians during Saint Paul's time were instructed not to cover their heads anymore.
I must listen to this as soon as I get time, It's a subject that confuses me greatly. PS: I attend an online Bible Study every Friday, taken by Dr Oster. He is a fount of knowledge . Everyone is invited to attend
This is true but the problem is that some have made a gross misinterpretation and assume that Paul is talking about a hat or some kind of veil. So if one were to read the KJV they would not be thinking a hat they would assume Paul is talking about long hair that women are to cover their heads in long hair. So yeah simply follow what is written. So if it refers to hair like SEVEN times and there is no word for cloth or fabric or veil then we should follow what is written.
@@dorinamary7863 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.
@@dorinamary7863 Neither word is the word one uses for the word "cloth". “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.” (Written by Bernie Parsons)
He doesn’t address the most mysterious part of the entire passage!! Which is “because of the angels.” So I was left unsatisfied with this answer. Might I suggest that Paul was teaching women SHOULD cover their heads “because of the angels” themselves covering their own glory when in the midst of God (and Hebrews teaches we ARE amidst the angels and the throne of God when in corporate worship).
We have a follow up video. I have new audio from Dr. Oster where he gives some of the background and follows it up with practical implications for today! Here is it - th-cam.com/video/cpIyqPw0v20/w-d-xo.html
@@Makethemhearragtime you ignore that fact that God dressed Adam and Eve alike, first in nothing and then in COATS of skin. No veils or long hair mentioned. The rest is MAN MADE.
I’ve studied the ancient Hebrew and Greek dialect for over 37 years. My understanding of the head covering is based upon ancient Hebrew tradition. It doesn’t have anything to do with a veil, or an actual covering, or even pagan traditions. In the Old Testament, it says that the Lord is our cover, when we pray, we go under his wing, and that’s what the prayer shawl is about for Jewish men, a reminder that they are under the wing of God when they pray. In the Hebrew tradition, a woman is covered by her husband. His prayer shawl is her blessing, his circumcision is her circumcision, he is head of household, represents everything for her. I have always believed this scripture to me meant that women are too pray in conjunction, in like manner and request as her husband. He should be the one that is ultimately praying for the household, and her prayer should be exactly what his prayers are. I think it was a reminder from Paul for women to stay obedient to God‘s rules of coming second to their husband. It doesn’t mean less than their husband, it means respecting that everything that happens in that household falls on the man’s head, he is responsible and will take account for it before God, not her, and so it is a kind request for women to keep that in mind.
This was written the Christians in Corinth both Christians in Judea. Two completely different contexts. Not sure what you mean be Greek or Hebrew dialect?
1Co 11:3 - But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man is the head of every woman in the church not just his wife
@@elsmith4352 “...the head of the woman is THE MAN” Notice how it didn't say that every man is the head of every woman. It only said that Christ is the head of every man. The wording makes all the difference. When a man and a woman enter a marriage covenant, she must submit to the authority of her husband because Adam was created first and Eve was created for him. Ephesians 5:23 “22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife...” Submission to headship between a man and a woman belongs within marriage. Therefore, every man can’t be the head of every woman. A married man cannot be the head of another man’s wife or any woman that is not his wife. Likewise, an unmarried man cannot be the head of a married woman or any other woman he hasn’t entered a marriage covenant with. In conclusion, if the head of the woman is her husband then a woman who has no husband has no head to dishonor.
He basically repeated what Paul said! Honestly we make a big controversy over nothing! The text CLEARLY says emphatically - cover your head while praying and prophesying! End of story. Now women can choose to obey or not but don’t try to prove Paul is not saying what he CLEARLY and EMPHATICALLY says!
Very traditional explanation. Does not address the main “controversy “ of the passage which is v. 11 because of the angels. Heiser’s exposition makes sense and addresses the issue
I wouldn’t say this is the best info on head covering as many comments show confusion whether he was for or against. So he wasn’t clear but it would lean towards against. So although I agree women don’t have to wear veils but his reasoning refers constantly toward culture rather than scripture. Here’s a better more BIBLICAL explanation: * Starting Off on the Right Foot… It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise. * Where the problem usually begins… If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil and assumes that such a person already has long hair and is wrong for not doing so. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered meaning has short hair would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair without a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to believe to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as “short” hair. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is no excuse not to understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman have short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to covering as long hair and uncovered to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
I have never heard this explanation before and it does make more sense than the standard temple explanation (which just didn't fit with the passage) Here is where it gets problematic. Suppose that Dr. Oster is correct and that we are dealing with the cultural worship patterns of the Roman Culture vs Greek and Hebrew culture. Paul doesn't go into an explanation as to why one must change their culture and the others may not. Which basically means I still don't know what to do with the passage. Fortunately I don't have to do anything with the passage, but it still is nice if passages have a purpose. The funny thing is that in the church of Christ I attend no women cover their heads, (maybe a couple do while a prayer is being offered, not sure) and none of them lead the prayers. The Orthodox church I attend on the other hand? All the women cover their head (though no one judges anyone else on it) and they also do a lot of the service. One of them also tried to trick me into wearing a headscarf (thankfully I knew this passage) Was it cultural? Maybe, does it still apply? The jury is out on that one. It is one thing to explain what was going on, it is quite another to determine what goes on today.
Thank you so much for posting this. You’re right - this is the best explanation on this passage. I just ordered his commentary on Corinthians & am looking forward to reading it
"No such custom" means it is not a cultural issue. It is a principal commandment. If anyone is contentious about this you have no choice but to accept it as it is not a custom it is a commandment. You need to be careful with Paul's writings because he wrote with a special wisdom that is hard to understand if you are unlearned and unstable so to test your heart. 2 Peter 3:15-17
Doctrine is such a tough thing to lay down like a good bricklayer. No wonder Paul said to give double honor to those who labor in word and doctrine. It is easier to generally teach (or preach) with a little-informed idea (or conviction) on what Scripture says rather than go deep, as this dear brother has done, to get the living stones to lay precious foundations of doctrine. You know someone has done a good job when what they teach unites, rather than divide the Ekklesia. Can anyone who loves the Lord fault this explanation of Scriptures? Methinks not. Thanks for sharing and helping to spread peace in the Body.
Paul was teaching Headship and not head covering. If you do not understand the concept of Christ being the head of the man and the man is the head of the woman, you can not understand why it matters to God in the first place.
It's not a cultural issue (if you actually look back historically, women in Corinth had covered heads and uncovered heads and it was not scandalous at all, just personal preference). Pagan men did have their heads covered while praying. It's not a salvation issue, it is an OBEDIENCE issue. Sadly our culture today has cut this part out of the Bible! They will add to it and explain it away while in the same breath say that the Bible is the Holy inspired Word of God and God doesn't change according to our culture (which is true! And exactly why we should treat this passage with respect, diligence and obedience).
tpersonal preference?!! The way I understand prayer and covering..... Head covering is not for prayer. Paul resorts to prayer and prophesy to show how improper it would look for a woman revealing her head to come before the Lord in request or thanksgiving while at the same time not adhering do the Lord's request of covering the head. It's something like this, "Lord please hear my prayer, as I am standing here before you and not obeying your will to cover my head."
It's not a salvation issue? It's God commandments. If we don't obey his commandments we will be left behind the closed door like the 5 foolish virgins were. They claimed to be God's children, but DISOBEDIENT! 1 Samuel 15:23 (KJV) For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. Matthew 7:21-24 (KJV) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Something I didn’t realize; Islamic Imams cover their head when they prophesy. That is one of the many pagan practices of Islamists. Thank you for the information!
I'd disagree with Dr. Richard's argument on the bases of omitting 1 Corinthians 11:10 "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." I believe women should cover their heads when praying or prophesying as the scriptures say. Likewise, men shouldn't cover their heads and shouldn't keep long hair either. Also, I think Dr. Richard is too theological than spiritual [no offence please] but I do respect his views. I personally believe that Paul was speaking to all gentile churches, of both his day and future ones. Finally, anyone who's hard-pressed about this topic, just ask the Holy Spirit.
Because he was speaking to predominantly Gentile chuches is part of his point...that Jewish Christians wouldn't need these instructions because they didn't have the same pagan idolatrous background that the Gentile Christians had.
What does he say about 1st Corinthians 14 where it says let your women keep silent for they are not permitted to speak, and it is shameful for women to speak in church?
I was told of a woman who wears her hat in bed because she says the scriptures says 'pray without ceasing'! The Bible does not mention what kind of head covering - scarf/shawl, hat. I have been in churches where a headband was considered a head-covering. Perhaps some could wear baseball caps (as even women do)! Does a woman wear a head-covering when she is in the worship team like a friend does?
* Starting Off on the Right Foot… It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise. * Where the problem usually begins… If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil and assumes that such a person already has long hair and is wrong for not doing so. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered meaning has short hair would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair without a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to believe to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as “short” hair. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is no excuse not to understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman have short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to covering as long hair and uncovered to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
This explanation of I Corinthians 11 has a lot that I agree with and a lot which is pure speculation. Dr. Oster's explanation as to the "Roman" cultural practice of heading coverings during 1st century in the "Roman" worship services is spot on. However, he assumes that such practice also took place in the "Christian assembly" without providing any explanation as to how he arrived as that conclusion. A quick reading of the text will reveal that the Paul never mentions the assembly in 1 Corinthians 11:2-15. Furthermore, Paul begins verse 18 by stating "for FIRST of all" when you come together in the church. If Paul was previously talking about Christians coming together to pray or prophesy in a Christian assembly, why would he say first of all if he had already previously been speaking on Christians coming together in verses 2-15? Verse 20 says when you assembly yourself together, verse 22 says do you despise ye the church (assembly) of God, verse 33 says when you come together to eat, and verse 34 states that your coming together be not unto judgment. The aforementioned verses clearly advise the reader that Paul is speaking in a Christian assembly (church) context but no such language is found in verse 2-15. In fact, Paul states that if anyone has an issue (is contentious) about what he wrote in verses 2-15, "we have no such practice, and neither do the churches of God. Here, Paul is saying we, which includes the Corinthian church(es) have no custom of head coverings and neither do any other Christian assemblies. Remember, although Paul was addressing a question which the Corinthian Christians wrote to him about various topics, his teaching was applicable to all Christians. We know this because Paul and Sosthenes begin I Corinthians by addressing it unto the church of God which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, WITH ALL THAT CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD IN EVERY PLACE, their Lord and ours. I Cor. 1:2 In my judgment, to really understand I Corinthians 11, you really need to understand the structure of the entire letter to the Corinthians. Paul starts out by addressing issues that have been reported to him in Chapters 1-6. Chapters 7-16 deal with Paul answering questions which the Corinthians wrote to him. We know this because Chapter 7 begins with now concerning the things wherefore ye wrote. Paul goes on to address various questions and we know that he has moved on to a different question when he wrote "now concerning". Paul does this in Chapter 8, concerning food sacrificed to idols, Chapter 12 with spiritual gifts, and Chapter 16 with the offering. Therefore, until Paul changes the subject in Chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11, he is dealing with questions and issues that arise around food sacrificed to idols. If you look at I Corinthians 11 this way, it becomes clear that that the place in question in which the praying and prophesying took place by Christians was probably in a pagan assembly. Go back and read Chapters 8 and 10. Does Paul mention any public places that Christians might be at? If so, from Dr. Oster's presentation, were these places which Christians might go to the same places where Romans were known to cover their heads during their religious activities? Paul begins his instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:2 by saying that he praises the Corinthians Christians for remembering him and hold on to the traditions (or teachings) which he passed to them. Why would Paul state that they remembered him in their activity of praying and prophesying? If you read Acts 17 and 18, you will see that Paul's custom was to go to synagogues and Gentile gatherings to proclaim the gospel. I believe when Paul said you remembered me, he is telling the Corinthians Christians that you have followed in my footsteps by taking the gospel to pagans/gentiles, as I have done in my ministry. On a final note, if women were praying and prophesying in the Christian assembly (which is teaching the word by revelation), how would this not conflict with I Tim 2:8-15 where men are only mentioned as praying in the assembly and women are instructed not to teach men?
My impression and assumption is that the women's issue may be driving your view that he cannot be discussing the assembly rather than the context itself. Because it would seem if women pray and prophesy, as you pointed out, that it might conflict with 1 Tim 2:8-15. If we can iron out why women praying and prophesying in the assembly is not a violation of 1 Tim 2, then maybe it can be easier to see the actual context of 1 Cor 11. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it seems you are saying this on some level yourself. Two things: 1 - the context of 1 Cor 11. You said there isn't an assembly context but I beg to differ. The assembly context goes back into chapter 10 when he brings up communion in verses 16 and 17. Some people add a detail not in the text - that this must be an assembly of women only. But it doesn't say that. 2 - ironing out 1 Tim 2. If you read all of 1 Tim 2 you will notice Paul uses the word "silent" twice. First in verse 2 and then 9 verses later in verse 11. That words has a range of meaning from complete silence to being peaceable. Paul didn't instruct them to live a completely silent life in the world in verse 2. Is it possible Paul is also then not saying women must be completely silent in verse 11? In most churches women are not completely silent anyway. None of this precludes women from doing what Paul instructed them to do in 1 Cor 11 - pray and prophesy in the assembly. Both work out together.
@@revolutionofordinaries -thanks for the reply. I agree that the context of I Corinthians 11:2-15 is an assembly/public context, I just don't see any evidence that the assembly is a Christian assembly. Please go back and reread my comment, I mentioned a pagan assembly. With your second point, I don't believe Paul is telling women to be completely silent in I Tim. 2. If he was saying this, women could not say amen, sing, etc, in the Christian assembly. I do believe he omits women praying publicly in the assembly (see I Tim 3:15, where Paul states that the things he wrote before (so 1 Tim. 2) pertains to how Christians are to behave or conduct themselves in the house of God). When it comes to teaching in the assembly (church), women are not to teach men, but they are instructed by the Holy Spirit to learn in quietness with all subjection. Paul grounds the reasoning for this position in the creation narrative just as he does in I Corinthians 11:2-15 in explaining men are the head of women just like God is the head of Christ. This clearly does not mean that women are inferior to men, but it speaks to the fact that submission and order are principles in the Godhead which God and Christ expect to be followed by men and women who are made in their image.
Also, regarding your assumption that I Tim. 2 is driving my view, what is the context of 1 Corinthians 11? Is Paul still dealing with questions/issues regarding food sacrificed to idols? If not, what evidence do you have in scripture that he is addressing another question given to him by the Corinthians? The only evidence in scripture that I see, which shows that he has moved on to another topic, which is not dealing with culture issues pertaining to food sacrificed to idols is the fact that he starts I Corinthians 12 off by saying now concerning spiritual gifts. Notice he does not start I Corinthians 11 off by saying now concerning head coverings. Also, remember that Paul spent 18 months in Corinth (see Acts. 18). Why do you believe the Corinthian Christians started abusing the Lord's Supper when they came together after Paul had been with them for over a year? Could it be that they were mimicking the behavior they witnessed at pagan feasts when they attended them? The original text did not have chapters and verses like we have so go back and reread Chapter 8 ,9, and 10 and see if Paul changes the questions/issues pertaining to food sacrificed to idols when you get to Chapter 11. If he does, what evidence in scripture do you see that shows he is addressing another question which is unrelated to food sacrificed to idols? Dr. Oster even conceded in his prestation that the head coverings were worn by "Romans" during their pagan worship services when they were sacrificing food and praying and prophesying.
As you and I both know there were no chatter divisions when Paul write it. Paul is writing to a house church or a letter circulated to the house churches in Corinth. He is writing about aspects that affect their communal life and worship. People prayed and prophesied in the assembly, which Paul is addressing. He is not addressing praying or prophesying privately at home. He started the idol conversation back in 10 before what you are referencing and directly talks about corporate wishful via communion, which you aren’t addressing. They had communion as a meal at that time. It all fits together when he connects communion to eating. And that flows right into prayer/prophesy worship practices which then goes right back to communion. It is all corporate worship and it doesn’t violate 1 Tim 2 per my explanation above. If women are to be silent and not pray or prophesy they can’t sing either as that isn’t being silent. But no one practices that.
@@revolutionofordinaries - I forgot to address your mentioning of the Lord's Supper in I Corinthians 10. Here Paul is using the Lord's Supper as an illustration to demonstrate that if Christians partake of food that they are know is sacrificed to idols they are sharing or having communion with something which is sacrificed to a demon. This illustration makes sense because Christians know that the cup of blessing which we bless is the sharing of the blood of Christ. Therefore, sharing food which a Christian knows is sacrificed to an idol is idolatry because they are communing/sharing of food which has been sacrificed to demons. Paul also uses the example of priests in the Old Testament sharing/eating the food which was sacrificed at the altar. Furthermore, Paul goes on in Chapter 10 to talk about how Christians should handle meat which is sold in markets or eating meat when they are invited to a feast (I wonder where the feast could be? See Chapter 8).
I watched this the whole way through and I'm still just as confused as before. I appreciate your efforts though my brother. A more clear audio would be appreciated next time (no offense).
It says that this was an issue because of the angels, not because of the Roman practices. It was a sign to the angels of a woman's obedience in accepting the authority of the men over the women in God's hierarchy to wear a head covering. It was a sign to both good and bad angels. Remember in Gen. how some of the angels came down and took the women as their wives? I don't know why people have so much trouble accepting what this says. It's pretty clear to me.
He starts out well, but misses the biggest point in V10 "Because of the Angels" The scripture is saying to be modest honoring one another's spouse, because there is a risk of the Angels of Gen 6, watching women that are seen as being loose, or impious. Key to this understanding is the word cover - περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) in v 15. This word is NOT a veil or mantel as Strong's might say, but something very different and is related to a sexual process.
Thanks for sharing this, but I would have liked to have heard the entire message! What I heard followed totally in line with what I believed these passages were teaching back in the 1980's. I had to settle this because I was a woman in God's church who was a teacher and I needed to know if men could be present in my classes and how I could be properly related to male authority within the church. I would have loved to have heard what he believes the modern day application of these passages could be. Thanks for sharing!
Its not that difficult. What is the main reason Paul wrote this? Authority. This text is about autority. If you look at Genesis, psalms, Efeze 5, Galatians 1 Peter and also 1 Corinthians 11 it is clear that man is given authority over woman. The same authority that Christ had. A serving authority. Paul makes the statement about the head covering because only whores had no veil. It is a SIGN of respect. Would be the same as a woman (or man!!!) Who goes to a bar and puts of their wedding rings.... Disrespect. So the authority is grounded in Genesis but the example Paul gives to mark his words is a cultural one.
It was not just the Romans who covered their heads. Jews did as well, example 2 Sam15:30. The high priest of Israel also wore a head covering exodus 29:6 and we are a priesthood 1 Peter 2 9-10. God instructed the garments for the priests. Woman also wore coverings Numbers 5 18-19. It is about honoring God. Even the angles cover their heads isaiah 6: 1-3. Woman have always worn head coverings in church and it only changed with woman's lib and interestingly enough the divorce rate then started to increase.
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.) 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) Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. -excerpt John 12 There was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes Reply for post if desired. It includes scriptures and commentary.
People skip right over the scripture that say her hair is given for a covering. The hair long hair is the covering. Thats why a man shouldnt have long hair. And thats why it say if she doesnt have a covering she might as well be shaved. The scripture is talking about long hair. Man is the glory of God. God dont have long hair. Woman are Glory of men they have long hair.
Respectfully, I listened to most of this message, and I still don't know what this man was trying to say. Theology is so confusing; but then again that is its purpose. (Isaiah 28:13) The matter is really very simple: "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." 1 Corinthians 11:3-6 When a Christian woman prays or prophesies, her head is covered. And, Christians pray without ceasing. So, a Christian woman's veil is a part of her daily dress. Her long hair is given to her as a covering, to cover her back, shoulders, and breasts, and it is a part of her nakedness, and it is a glory to her. So, just as the rest of her nakedness, her long glorious hair is covered when she is praying or prophesying, or anywhere in public. Any place that it is proper for her to be fully dressed, it is also proper for her head to be covered. The only man that should see her long hair is her husband, in private. Amen.
We have a follow up video. I have new audio from Dr. Oster where he gives some of the background and follows it up with practical implications for today! Here is it - th-cam.com/video/cpIyqPw0v20/w-d-xo.html
The scripture being referred to doesn't say men have to have their heads covered, that's the women. 1 Corinthians 11:4 NLT A man dishonors his head if he covers his head while praying or prophesying.
He shows inscriptions and statues with men covering their heads during SACRIFICES but zero evidence that this is related to "prayer and prophesying". Right?
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
Not true here is some biblical logic and evidence: It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise. * Where the problem usually begins… If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil and assumes that such a person already has long hair and is wrong for not doing so. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered meaning has short hair would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair without a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to believe to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as “short” hair. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is no excuse not to understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman have short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to covering as long hair and uncovered to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
The issue I see has to do with what the covering is supposed to be and under what conditions it is to be applied. I'm not thoroughly settled on this, but feel at this point that the covering was hair, not a physical object. If it is a physical object, it is supposed to be more of what we would call a veil which would wrap around the head (based on the Greek word). Though some claim that the covering is to be worn all of the time, it is clear that Paul ties it specifically to prayer and prophesying (probably public and in church). i have heard the "all of the time" argument and think it's very weak.
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.) ...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'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes, scriptures outside of Corinthians mostly Essay by another: post length 7 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary.
To those who seek the truth, St. Paul writes and speaks plainly in 1 Corinthians 11, and you are not wrong that you understand what he plainly states -- women *should* cover their heads while in the divine presence. That was the practice in the Jewish temple, and it was carried over to Christian assemblies for the Lord's Supper, and that is why it is necessary. St. Paul warns against offending angels for this reason. The truth of the matter is that this began with men covering their heads as well, just as the first Christians would practice in the Temple in Jerusalem when it was there, and then men would uncover after the prayers of consecration to acknowledge the presence of a superior as was the custom, and which we continue to this very day, of men uncovering the head in recognition of a superior, as in the military, or of an important person otherwise. So it does not indicate inferiority for women; rather it is a sign of *reverence* before the divine.
This is good historical information but added to my confusion. His explanation was not conclusive. I have been a born again, evangelic, protestant Christ follower for 45 years. Just in the last few months has this chapter really started to minister to me. I can not seem to get it off my mind. Why do the churches I have gone to my entire life not have head coverings for women? Why do I wear a hat to church sometimes and not feel bad about it? There is major confusion in our present day about gender roles and how we are to align with biblical authority over us. I feel this liturgical "tradition" would help so many people. It is beautiful and at the same time would/will be difficult for me to obey. It feels very Amish/Mennonite ish horse and buggy feeling. I don't fully get it still, but I sure get the main thrust of the passage. We are out of line with genders and submission to Gods authority and I think if we preached this as it is clearly written in 1 Corinthians 11 people would be set free. The original genesis deception of Satan was "Did God really say?". I think we might be doing something similar hear. Did God really say to "cover the woman's head" as a sign/symbol of who the woman belongs to and who the man belongs to? Lord help us obey your word as your word reveals your heart. I think a few other people have mentioned the idea of "explaining away" the scripture. I agree! Why do we get to this portion of scripture and try and explain it away rather than explain an application for us/me? Even the main idea of the portion of scripture is explained away because of the historical/roman/prostitute/tonga/cultural... Paul specifically says keep this TRADITION so that you can keep this PRINCIPLE of gender role alignment in proper biblical order. But for me this is going to be hard. "Hard is the way that leads to life and few find it"
* Starting Off on the Right Foot… It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. Therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise. * Where the problem usually begins… If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for not doing so and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered (meaning has short hair) would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair “without” a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
The thing that always stands out to me is this: When you ask someone why women shouldn’t wear head coverings in church you get a gigantic, overly-long, hoop-jumping, explanation of how this one passage in scripture is no longer applicable and is merely traditional and not a command from God, despite the church wearing head coverings for nearly 2,000 years. However, when you ask someone who believes in head coverings why head coverings should be worn, they simply say “Because the Bible says to.”
The Bible also says greet with holy kisses. It says they met in homes. It says they washed feet...and Jesus commanded them to continue doing that into the future. Lots of things can be given a "because the Bible says to" explanation - so why do we do some and not do others?
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.) 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) Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. -excerpt John 12 A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes Reply for post if desired. It includes scriptures and commentary.
Yes, of course he would. The Bible was written in a specific time and place to specific people in a specific culture. That doesn't mean none of it matters. It just means you have to pay attention to what was going on in their world and then try to understand the principle being taught and whether or not we have anything like that going on today.
@@revolutionofordinaries Women were not wearing a fabric head covering for spiritual reasons in very very early Christianity. It wasn't even in the Law. Eventually, certainly by the time of Clement of Alexandria, the false teaching of a fabric covering came to be. It still continues to some extent. ...but because it has also been enjoined that the head should be veiled and the face covered; for it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men. Nor is it seemly for a woman to wish to make herself conspicuous, by using a purple veil. Would it were possible to abolish purple in dress, so as not to turn the eyes of spectators on the face of those that wear it! But the women, in the manufacture of all the rest of their dress, have made everything of purple, thus inflaming the lusts. -Clement of Alexandria from his 'The Instructor' at about 198 A.D. This is getting long, but Paul knew the priests of the Old Covenant were REQUIRED by scripture to wear turbans. All this can only mean the long hair of a woman is the 'covering'. From my main post on this subject below: _____________________________________ 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
Not only did he assume ( His words ) but he says I think. He then completely misses the thrust of God's teaching. This has nothing to do with a cultural argument, but everything to do with The Holy Spirit inspiring Paul to teach God's commandments 2 Tim. 3: 16-17. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
No. He is saying it had religious ramifications then that don’t overlap today. You might read this from him - renew.org/on-gender-and-the-bible-whats-up-with-head-coverings-in-1-corinthians-11-part-2/
* Where the problem usually begins… (I) If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. A typical question from those who are against hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being shaven than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Think about it. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II) If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III) If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected. (originally posted by FA)
1:15 "This is not a letter to a church in the Bible belt" 1 Corinthians 1:2: "To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with *all those who in every place* call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:" (emphasis added) Oops. Paul uses arguments in 1 Corinthians 11 from creation and the headship order (God -> Christ, Christ -> Man, Man -> Woman). This means that head coverings are a trans-cultural, timeless Christian custom.
Ch 1:2 states .... to all that call upon the name of the Lord IN EVERY PLACE. This is not just a cultural issue affecting Corinth. Men of a Jewish background were used to wearing a prayer cap. The man is the glory of Christ and the glory of Christ must be seen in the gathered company. The woman is the glory of the man and his glory should be hidden. This is the teaching of headship. The woman where possible assumes her dignified place of submission (not inferiority) by growing her glory or hair long declaring her womanhood. She wears the veil or second covering to signify she has submitted to Godly order in the church. Paul explains this clearly in the chapter so that there is no abuse of position or power by the men. Further light is given in 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Of course this conflicts with modern ideas but God will ever honour those who honour Him.
What was all that about who is the head of who then? Why is that there, when presumably it was info that was already clear unless he was using it as an example for further verses. I think this is about authority, submission and role.
I wonder if "because of the angels" may be similar to the GR. angelos (pastors) mentioned in each of the 7 churches in Rev ch 1-3? Could it be to not cause frustration/discouragement to pastors? Michael Heiser mentions woman's hair in roman times was considered a sexual organ..
I don't think that is it. He would have used another word like presbuteros, imo. Angellos can mean humans but it isn't frequent - Luke 9:52, Luke 7:24, James 2:25, Mark 1:2, Luke 7:27. That's about it.
This has never been a problem for me because in the whole Biblethere is only one witness, the Bible says to make a doctrine you need two or three witnesses; and also a verse just below says clearly a woman’s hair is her covering.
So did the woman in Ephesus cover their head? Also I understand that it was a Roman practice that they brought in because of their customs . What if our husbands do not want us to cover our heads and we don’t care either way.
...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.
@@MarthaM-xq6sv well I already don’t attend the American Babylon church they are 501c3. As far as my reading and praying goes my hair is my head covering so since he doesn’t want me to I’m going to respect him because he is also my head ❤️😁
Are you gonna obey God or are you gonna question Him. God says His ways is not man's way so we are call to obedience even when we don't understand. The truth of God is revealed in obedience. What is written must be obeyed it does not matter how people try to neglect them.
Angels are invisible powers acting to enforce God's Order (Powers and principalities), The covering is an outward sign of that invisible authority upon her. (Like a Badge is a sign to let someone know of the Authority a police officer has.) The covering let's everyone know she's married/under her husbands authority.
@@jasonbourne5142 I am actually familar with his answer - I was just looking to see if anyone else was. I have a couple of his books - unseen realm and reversing hermon. i will at some point buy angels and demons (though not the dan brown version!!!)
This is really interesting. So basically what you're saying is this is a Roman issue.. Having said that? I like the idea of women wearing hats. I just like it. Not rags. You shouldn't look like a cleaning woman when you go to church. Or anywhere else for that matter but in my mind? In context of this lecture? I might be misinterpreting, but what I hear is, in God's eyes, men and women are equal. And that the head covering for women or hat is Symbolic of that period Women Where their hair long. It's a distinction between men and women traditionally. You cover that and you become equal. See what I'm saying? Actually come on I could practically write a book about this in context of more modern times. And how it still applies. Not just head covering but just the whole package. Everywhere from your home to how you are in the workplace. It's a powerful thing. But I really like this period I've never seen it that way. A woman but an equal standing.
I have recently started wearing a head covering again when I came upon a woman wearing one n Kroger. I believe it was God leading & several times after that I saw women with their heads covered.Aktho I am nlo longer living with my husband, I believe I am t wear it.
Listen, l don't want to talk much, all of you both pastors and those that comment, do you have Holy Spirit at all? The things of God and bible, if there's any controversial issue can't someone ask the Holy Spirit for clearance? Rather some people are saying their own mind and feeling, which is not proper. Let me tell you from my spiritual experience, that command of covering head must be adhered to. Period.
Were the women praying and prophesying in groups of women only? Or were men present? If it was mixed wouldn't that contradict the passage that says women should keep silent? Can we agree that either way is speculation.
The women he told to be silent were being disruptive in 1 Cor 14 - as he tells them that if they have questions they should ask them at home. There is a reason Paul told them to be silent in 14 and to speak in 11, imo. There is always a degree of speculation in trying to iron out various texts because we weren't there to get the whole story. So we do the best we can with what we have. Good question!
...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.
That is weird. Unfortunately too many people like to focus on anything other than the scriptures and that is true on both sides of this topic (those who think veil and those who think hair). Law of Liberty channel has a nice explanation I think.
The problem with head covering is that since itus now counter cultural, one might be tempted to wear a hat or veil as a display of piety. Yes St Paul advised wonen to cover their heads. But Jesus appreciated it when a woman washed his feet and then dried them with her unbound hair. Also Jesus advised us to not pray in a boastful way but to pray quietly in our closet (private room). All things are lawful but not necessarily good. Women who adopt head coverings should carefully consider their reasons .
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
We have a follow up video that answers some of your questions that you posted since this video came out.. I have new audio from Dr. Oster where he gives some of the background and follows it up with practical implications for today! Here is it - th-cam.com/video/cpIyqPw0v20/w-d-xo.html
YOU have to teach out of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Christ is that authority, this passage is so simple, its speaking spiritual.
How can anyone listen to this?? Why wont anyone listen, it is not a custom, not cultural, just shows that people don't study from the sources rather they would study from the product only.
The head covered has zero to do with anything on her head or hair, the covering is Yeshua messiah, its talking about the fallen angels as it was in the days of Noah Jesus spoke of in the gospels, when the angels seduced the daughters of men, the (sons of God) that brought about the nephilim, naphi in the Hebrew, to keep their heads covered because they're coming back and the ministering spirits are watching, so are the fallen angels who were with Satan during his overthrow.
Rev. 12 when Micheal kicks Satan out of heaven.
The man to not have long hair is speaking that it would be a perverted act, angel and man intimately Paul said no, they're coming back for the daughters of men as Jesus said as part of how it was in the days of Noah, and will be and people are listening down these rabbit holes thinking it had to do with 💇 HAIR!!!!! 🤯😔
Its in the Bible, Yeshua told us all things. No excuse but to start today.
@@YeshuaMessiah777correct
@@YeshuaMessiah777 What you said is very interesting, but the way you explained it is very confusing. Maybe English isn't your first language, not trying to sound insulting, I just wish it was explained better.
I really want to understand this, do you have some reference materials you can point me to? I'd like to dive deeper into this. Thank you
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
@robertmiller812 Very persuasive and thought provoking.
It is refreshing that he pointed out that men also needed to change their behavior. I came from a background where my first marriage (now remarried 33 years) I was very suppressed under a narcissistic husband. So the word "submission" triggered me. But now in the last few years, I understand that if a husband loves his wife properly and she feels protected and does not feel used, she would be willing to submit to his loving, protective leadership.
Amen to that C! If you read Ephesians 5 you see submission starts off as mutual "Submit one to each other" and then goes wife to husband and then goes to the husband to die to self for the wife.
I will advise you that if you are in a nother marriage and you first husband is still alive you are in adultery.
@@Tobesetfree777 That's not what Jesus said.
@@revolutionofordinaries What did Jesus day about the subject?
@@John14Verse6 The topic of head coverings in New Testament worship? He didn't...tell me more of what you are thinking.
That was a really, really good commentary on head covering in the church. I thank God for making sure you preserved this video. May you keep the peace of God and His grace with you always.😊
Thank you!
Head covering is not in the church only. It's everywhere. It's part of a female wardrobe.
I wear a veil when I'm praying, reading the Holy Bible and in church, to honour Jesus Christ our loving Saviour. Also husband is the head of the family .
Thank you for your input Matilda.
We have a follow up video. I have new audio from Dr. Oster where he gives some of the background and follows it up with practical implications for today! Here is it - th-cam.com/video/cpIyqPw0v20/w-d-xo.html
Good for you 😊
Do you wear a veil when you're on the road, or in danger?
Veil is not for prayer.
Paul resorts to prayer and prophesy to demonstrate how improper it looks for an uncovered women to be before the Lord, asking for something, while being in defiance to His will.
Your analysis, the bible clearly says, when women pray, its a testimony to the universe that they do so with a veil over their heads @@lluda44
I read this passage this morning, and after many years of reading, moving on and excepting it at face value, it hit me. Something other than the traditionally excepted view on this chapter was shouting at me to look further and deeper into this passage. This was very helpful and I'll need to look into it even further. Thanx for uploading this.
I feel that the cultural background and Roman examples are instructive and informative. The issue that I see with his presentation Biblically is that he has implied that women have the right to take the spiritual lead in the assembled church. While at the same time asserting that the violation of this text was when male spiritual leadership was being violated. This would contradict Paul's other teaching on the subject (I Cor. 14:34-35; I Tim. 2:11-12). Since Paul isn't contradicting Paul, nor is the Holy Spirit contradicting the Holy Spirit. Clearly, women were given spiritual gifts, which were exercised only in an authorized situation. Women were to instruct other women and also children. This would only be possible with spiritual gifts since they didn't have the completed Revelation as we do today. The verses in question do not explicitly state nor imply that he was addressing a situation where women were leading the mixed assembly. Women are not inferior to men, just as Christ is not inferior to the Father (I Cor. 11:3). We are speaking of differing roles assigned by God. Another example of such is that Jesus was not permitted to be a priest while on earth. Was He inferior to Levites? No, just unauthorized under God's Law to serve in that way. Paul's message was not one that put women in role of public speaker. His instructions were to an assembly of people who were dismissing the cultural norms which honored gender roles as given by God. The cultural norms may change, but God's Will and desire does not. We must not violate the roles desired by God and assigned by Him.
I am not sure what would prohibit a woman from saying a prayer amongst other Christians. We adopted a very Catholic view of the assembly and what constitutes authority. We created roles in the assembly that aren't even in the Bible, then associated authority with things because they were roles (opening prayer, closing prayer, etc) but this isn't how the early church operated.
1 Timothy 2:13-14 forever settles the 'women authority' issue. Both reasons given in vs. 13 & 14 are eternal & can never be changed, ie, the fact that Adam was created first & that the woman first usurped God's authority in the Garden.
John MacArthur calls this the 'curse of the woman' - that she has eternally been banned from having authority over man in spiritual matters.
@@williamwalker9148 I encourage you to look at how the Greek is actually written and then add context to when and where that 1 Timothy passage was written! Like you, I was once STAUNCHLY against women speaking or ANY role in the church assembly… until I for myself actually researched it and found out that view is CLEARLY wrong.
@@williamwalker9148 didn’t Jesus Himself
First appear to a woman and commission her to carry His Resurrection message to His male disciples.
@@applehollowhomestead8068
th-cam.com/video/8JAwg4q4WNk/w-d-xo.html
I believe this is wiser response
The historical context was very enlightening! After listening to this I also noticed that Paul commended the church for keeping the “traditions” that he passed on. Guessing this means that since head coverings were “traditions” they do not carry the weight of a timeless command of God?
That is a good question.
He called them ordinances not traditions. There is a difference.
Interesting info, thanks for sharing. I definitely agree with some of it, but I'm not sure if it takes all things into consideration.
I am someone who believes head-coverings are good and necessary for modern times, and the book which helped me fully come to that conclusion was "Head Covering: A Forgotten Christian Practice for Modern Times" by Jeremy Gardiner. It's concise and also takes into account various historical research.
The biggest argument for head-coverings is in vs. 8 and vs 14--Paul points back to Creation to support his argument. Jesus also points back to Creation in Matthew 19 when discussing divorce. In vs. Matthew 19:8 He basically states that God's order is superior to the cultural context of the day when He says "from the beginning this was not so" (concerning divorce). So likewise, the fact that Paul uses creation/nature to support head-coverings strongly suggests that it is not dependent on the culture of Corinth, but is a general principal/practice to be followed. This is corroborated with historical evidence--we know that because of the teaching in 1 Cor. 11 that women wore their head-covering in other places such as the churches in Egypt. The "ante-nicene fathers" attest to this, which snippets can be easily read on the topic in David Bercot's "Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" and some which I believe are present in the aforementioned book.
Also, "because of the angels" in vs 10, though confusing, to me suggests it's something beyond a local custom.
The "judge for yourselves" part in 1 Cor. 11 is definitely misunderstood. I believe Paul is basically saying "obviously we don't have any other practice except what I previously explained, so just accept it."
Now, if what i'm saying is true, then it brings up a very important (and contentious) idea that the CoC would have to face--if women could pray and prophesy in the assembly back then, what does that mean for us today/how would that look? I have not listened to all your videos on the role of women yet, but I plan to soon.
Take care, Matt.
Thank you so much for your feedback and how much time you have spent thinking this through. God bless you!
th-cam.com/video/8JAwg4q4WNk/w-d-xo.html
you'll enjoy this from Derek Prince
amen it has noting to do with culture it is a respect unto god and husband
Thank you for this!
@@rachelmay8910 No problem 🙂
The introduction to the book specifically addresses it to all believers in every place who call on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Amen
You are right...so when we find ourselves in a Greco-Roman pagan occult setting where head coverings mean today what they did then, then we should do exactly as Paul instructed. But that is not at all what people mean today when they do head coverings and then some make it a salvation issue.
@@revolutionofordinaries you’re missing the point entirely. The statement is explicitly addressing all believers in every place. Doesn’t sound like it’s limited to Greco Roman occultists to me. And nobody is making it a salvation issue except people who are not saved.
Greetings, in Jesus’ name..
I see your comment was from 6 months ago, but could you possibly explain why Paul said when he made an end of speaking the matter,
“But if any man seem to be contentious,
👉we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”👈
(1 Corinthians 11:16)
The entire civilized world practiced a full head-covering for the sake of MODESTY, not for prayer. China, India, central Asia, Assyria, Turkey, Arabia, Persia, North Africa, and all of the Mediterranean states practiced the TRUE head-covering. We made a video proving it called "Christian Women Must Wear a REAL Veil."
Doesn't take much to blow your mind is my impression of this teaching. He he he he. You're still loved and valued.
Thanks for being gracious!
I want you to realize that Christ has authority over every man, a husband has authority over his wife, and God has authority over Christ. 4 Every man who covers his head when he prays or speaks what God has revealed dishonors the one who has authority over him. 5 Every woman who prays or speaks what God has revealed and has her head uncovered while she speaks dishonors the one who has authority over her. She is like the woman who has her head shaved. 6 So if a woman doesn't cover her head, she should cut off her hair. If it's a disgrace for a woman to cut off her hair or shave her head, she should cover her head. 7 A man should not cover his head. He is God's image and glory. The woman, however, is man's glory. 8 Clearly, man wasn't made from woman but woman from man. 9 Man wasn't created for woman but woman for man. 10 Therefore, a woman should wear something on her head to show she is under {someone's} authority, out of respect for the angels.
1 Cor 11:3-10 (GW)
If the bible is the ordained Word of God for all time, why do we take this passage as time relevant? It seems nothing else in the new testament can be addressed like this so why this particular topic? I’m a simple Christian and it just seems like an explaining away of what is not particularly palatable. You never see men at the pulpit covered… so why women uncovered? Just trying to make sense of it all…
Well, I would say one aspect is that we also don't follow the old law. Therefore while the Bible is timeless and we can learn from it, it doesn't mean we should practice everything written. Same thing with sacrifices.... We know of them and their uses, but no longer practice that. I'm still on the fence on head coverings. Jesus never speaks about them and it's only mentioned in one letter to Corinth. If it was of such importance like other topics you would think it would be mentioned more.
You are on the right course. People who take on the mantle of teaching God's word need to be very careful with this and every other subject inspired by God thru Paul. 1 Corinthians 11: is from God himself.
Yes to you all. I’m really trying to live an authentic life for Christ and I’m black American and need clear understanding on how to conducts myself as a woman and mother of a daughter and want to be in proper order. (Although I’m not married 😞) any help in understanding of this is only in church prayer, prophesy, and daily living. ❤️
@@SutanaMonae88 In 1st corinthians chapters 11-14 Paul is dealing with when the church has come together in one place via worship 1 Corinthians 14:23 Therefore if the whole church comes together in one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those who are uninformed or unbelievers, will they not say that you are out of your mind?
If it were time sensitive, what other commands in 1 Corinthians are time sensitive? Might as well throw the whole book out of the Bible. Paul in verse 16 says “all the churches of God” that means all churches practiced this.
Yes to you all. I’m really trying to live an authentic life for Christ and I’m black American and need clear understanding on how to conducts myself as a woman and mother of a daughter and want to be in proper order. (Although I’m not married 😞) any help in understanding of this is only in church prayer, prophesy, and daily living. ❤️
God bless you in your desire and search for deeper understanding and faith! God will help you on that one!
Try and search William MARRION BRANHAM church and have peace as they will help you leave a Christian life
I thank Paul for directions to look for w.m.branham churches they'll be guided God bless you.
Hallelujah sis sultana God will direct you gbu.
I’ve only heard the first few minutes, but the letter is written to not only those in Corinth but to all believers.
Yes but it was first written to the Corinthians who were going through some very specific things. Read the letter and those things will jump out to you page after page.
I only heard the beginning. two things they ignore. one is mary wears a veil. Also the reason Paul gives in the bible is that it is because of the angels. Do we just ignore all that then ?
Amazing! I knew this about the women, but I didn’t know about the men and why they needed to uncover. I love how Paul always swam against the cultural currents on purpose, to be set apart/holy, yet the modern mainstream churches today are trying everything they can to be “culturally relevant” which basically has amounted to compromise and lukewarmness. Great video! I’d like to find more of his…
I had no idea until I heard this several years ago...you are way ahead of the game!
St. Paul is making the statement.....
"I want you to realize that Christ has authority over every man, a husband has authority over his wife, and God has authority over Christ.
4 Every man who covers his head when he prays or speaks what God has revealed dishonors the one who has authority over him.
5 Every woman who prays or speaks what God has revealed and has her head uncovered while she speaks dishonors the one who has authority over her.
She is like the woman who has her head shaved.
6 So if a woman doesn't cover her head, she should cut off her hair.
If it's a disgrace for a woman to cut off her hair or shave her head, she should cover her head.
7 A man should not cover his head. He is God's image and glory. The woman, however, is man's glory.
8 Clearly, man wasn't made from woman but woman from man.
9 Man wasn't created for woman but woman for man.
10 Therefore, a woman should wear something on her head to show she is under authority, out of respect for the angels".
1 Corinthians 11:3-10 (GW)
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.
The head covering topic is one of the most discussed and debated topics all over the Churches, I found this audio clip informative considering the Roman cultural aspects, However the important point of verse 10 regarding the angels was not addressed at all, I think you shoud share your views on it and also other people's view on that specific verse.
Shalom
The best I’ve heard on that subject is because the ‘angels are present as the believers worship God’ and it demonstrates to them the created order of authority that God has instituted (man is the head of the woman etc). Everything should be done in proper order (also seems very simple and fits with the context).
Psalm 22:3
Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel.
@@justinmc1287 Yes it does fit the context. I also feel that we humans in the after age would judge the angels and this disorder may be a wrong standard, just a wild guess... Not sure.
Paul tells women in this statement "the why" for headcovering It's "a symbol of authority on her head" - What exactly does that statement mean? Symbol is a thing that represents or stands for something else. So what does the woman's head covering stand for? It stands for God's hierarchy of authority in His Kingdom, In His creation When a woman covers her head in prayer and her work for the Lord - She is announcing to the seen and unseen world, to principalities and powers and wicked rulers in high places and to the angels, to the minions of satan and to the devil himself, "that she has submitted herself and is under the authority of God Almighty" ---- So back off satan -hands off!!! Every woman of God, especially single women without husbands should want to wear that symbol of authority on her head - because the angels are watching, and so is everyone else in the universe! Ladies make that clear distinction you are not a woman of rebellion, jezebel's daughter, you are like Ruth who left Moab and place herself under the protection and care of Almighty God. "May the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge, reward you" Ruth 2:12-13 for your humble submission to His Word and His Authority. hope this will help women who are still trying to understand this teaching..... God bless you all.
I was sincerely Blessed by this. It describes my feelings about my own head covering. It is very personal and even though I am single and 70, I am attractive and want to live a set-apart life unto The Lord and not be a distraction anywhere but under the covering and Authority of The Holy One of Israel in The Name of Yeshua Messiah.
A symbol is the long hair covering the head.
Short hair is the symbol of independence and sovereignty.
Long hair is the symbol of authority over a female.
@@michekids read Katherine Bushnell “ God’s Word to Women”. Written 100 years ago. She answers that question and many more. Her book is free online.
Followers of the Way has a great and incredibly comprehensive teaching on this
Yes! So does Limerick City Church.
Followers of the Way practice the ridiculous Amish head cap, not the ancient veil Paul commanded women to wear. Watch our comprehensive video called "Christian Women Must Wear a REAL Veil."
I linked the TH-cam videos above.
This was a good teaching of the historical and cultural context of Corinthians 11. Thank you for posting it because I have never heard it before. Also, is there a part two because it seems like there might have been more to hear, and there was no mention of the application for this day and age.
Thank you SO MUCH for listening Nicole! I wish there was a part two but there isn't. I will contact Dr. Oster and see if he would be willing to do some application. Great idea!
@@revolutionofordinaries 😇
Thank you for sharing! I agree that the quality of this teaching is superb.
So glad it was helpful to you. Thanks for watching and even taking a minute out of your day to comment. I appreciate you!
Katherine Bushnell and “God’s Word to Women” written 100 years ago. Her scholarship is just astounding. and her study of the original languages is quite remarkable when the scripture refers to women. It takes an open mind and love for the truth and not tradition to receive it.
I’m honestly confused. Not sure if I’m missing something.
The pastor explaining this passage took a lot of time to make the point that religious pagan practices included covering of heads while praying or prophesying by both men and women alike.
Then wouldn’t the men Paul is referring to, who had been covering their heads, be automatically in right position presenting his authority over the women?
A woman NOT covering her head while prophesying would already be showing submission of authority to man and would not need to be addressed.
I agreed there is a special role men have over women in God’s design but in no way is this example consistent with the case the pastor here is making otherwise Paul would have to had to reiterate that men SHOULD cover their heads as a sign of authority over women.
I always knew this passage to be related to the issue of women who had shaved their heads in worship of pagan gods and having no hair was why Paul made the argument for them to be covered. Then naturally men would have to put away the clear pagan practice of covering their head for prayer/prophesying.
Paul later makes the final argument that our hair was naturally given by God as our covering anyway if that was an issue that mattered for people.
I’m sadly disappointed and confused with the answer supported by these pastors. :(
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse.
If a woman has no covering while
assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off.
So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head
when praying to God.
If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair
each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 Then why would Paul say that long hair is given to her for a covering? Why confuse? Furthermore, if the nature of head coverings points back to Adam and Eve, why didn't God give Eve a head covering? This would've eliminated any room for debate. Lastly, if the head of the woman is her husband, would this exempt single women and widows from having to cover? They can't disgrace a head that isn't there.
Man, I appreciate Dr. Oster's research! This is very helpful in my study of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16
So glad you found it helpful!
"For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels." 1 Corinthians 11:10 KJV
I have a better understanding of the scripture. Especially as it relates to the different nationalities that were in the churches at Corinth and the pagan style of worship they came with and practice. Thanks sir, God richly bless you.
So glad it was helpful!
I believe that Jewish men had covering on their head when they worshipped, and the Jews who became Christians during Saint Paul's time were instructed not to cover their heads anymore.
This is a really good and plausible explanation. Thanks for sharing this!
Thank you!
I must listen to this as soon as I get time, It's a subject that confuses me greatly. PS: I attend an online Bible Study every Friday, taken by Dr Oster. He is a fount of knowledge . Everyone is invited to attend
Thank you Mary! I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
How do I attend this Bible study?
@@tammiehacker5950 we do it on FB every Friday morning USA. I'M in Scotland, so its early evening for me
Does Dr. Oster record podcasts? If so where are they? Would love to hear more from him.
@@wendellhoward884 I'm not sure, but I can go and DM him to ask
Just do what the Bible says , when there is too much argument regarding an obligation, what needs to be done just simply follow what's written
This is true but the problem is that some have made a gross misinterpretation and assume that Paul is talking about a hat or some kind of veil. So if one were to read the KJV they would not be thinking a hat they would assume Paul is talking about long hair that women are to cover their heads in long hair. So yeah simply follow what is written. So if it refers to hair like SEVEN times and there is no word for cloth or fabric or veil then we should follow what is written.
Great point. Thanks for adding value in the comments!
@@GodsWordisTruth-zg1jj But there IS a word for cloth or fabric. There are two Greek words being used. One is hair and the other is cloth.
@@dorinamary7863 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.
@@dorinamary7863 Neither word is the word one uses for the word "cloth".
“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.” (Written by Bernie Parsons)
Best explanation I've heard over the last 43 years!
So glad it was helpful!
He doesn’t address the most mysterious part of the entire passage!! Which is “because of the angels.” So I was left unsatisfied with this answer. Might I suggest that Paul was teaching women SHOULD cover their heads “because of the angels” themselves covering their own glory when in the midst of God (and Hebrews teaches we ARE amidst the angels and the throne of God when in corporate worship).
We have a follow up video. I have new audio from Dr. Oster where he gives some of the background and follows it up with practical implications for today! Here is it - th-cam.com/video/cpIyqPw0v20/w-d-xo.html
They ignore the fact that Mary, not from Corinth wears a veil. And long hair.
@@Makethemhearragtime you ignore that fact that God dressed Adam and Eve alike, first in nothing and then in COATS of skin. No veils or long hair mentioned. The rest is MAN MADE.
I’ve studied the ancient Hebrew and Greek dialect for over 37 years. My understanding of the head covering is based upon ancient Hebrew tradition. It doesn’t have anything to do with a veil, or an actual covering, or even pagan traditions.
In the Old Testament, it says that the Lord is our cover, when we pray, we go under his wing, and that’s what the prayer shawl is about for Jewish men, a reminder that they are under the wing of God when they pray. In the Hebrew tradition, a woman is covered by her husband. His prayer shawl is her blessing, his circumcision is her circumcision, he is head of household, represents everything for her.
I have always believed this scripture to me meant that women are too pray in conjunction, in like manner and request as her husband. He should be the one that is ultimately praying for the household, and her prayer should be exactly what his prayers are. I think it was a reminder from Paul for women to stay obedient to God‘s rules of coming second to their husband. It doesn’t mean less than their husband, it means respecting that everything that happens in that household falls on the man’s head, he is responsible and will take account for it before God, not her, and so it is a kind request for women to keep that in mind.
This was written the Christians in Corinth both Christians in Judea. Two completely different contexts.
Not sure what you mean be Greek or Hebrew dialect?
If you are a woman cover your head when you pray in the assembly 1 Cor. 11:6
True
Only if you're married, right? Since the head of the woman is her husband it wouldn’t make sense to include single women and widows.
1Co 11:3 - But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Every man is the head of every woman in the church not just his wife
All women
@@elsmith4352 “...the head of the woman is THE MAN”
Notice how it didn't say that every man is the head of every woman. It only said that Christ is the head of every man. The wording makes all the difference. When a man and a woman enter a marriage covenant, she must submit to the authority of her husband because Adam was created first and Eve was created for him.
Ephesians 5:23
“22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife...”
Submission to headship between a man and a woman belongs within marriage. Therefore, every man can’t be the head of every woman. A married man cannot be the head of another man’s wife or any woman that is not his wife. Likewise, an unmarried man cannot be the head of a married woman or any other woman he hasn’t entered a marriage covenant with. In conclusion, if the head of the woman is her husband then a woman who has no husband has no head to dishonor.
He basically repeated what Paul said! Honestly we make a big controversy over nothing! The text CLEARLY says emphatically - cover your head while praying and prophesying! End of story. Now women can choose to obey or not but don’t try to prove Paul is not saying what he CLEARLY and EMPHATICALLY says!
Very traditional explanation. Does not address the main “controversy “ of the passage which is v. 11 because of the angels. Heiser’s exposition makes sense and addresses the issue
I wouldn’t say this is the best info on head covering as many comments show confusion whether he was for or against. So he wasn’t clear but it would lean towards against. So although I agree women don’t have to wear veils but his reasoning refers constantly toward culture rather than scripture.
Here’s a better more BIBLICAL explanation:
* Starting Off on the Right Foot…
It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise.
* Where the problem usually begins…
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil and assumes that such a person already has long hair and is wrong for not doing so. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off.
Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered meaning has short hair would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair without a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to believe to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved.
* Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and uncovered."
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering."
If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as “short” hair.
* You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking….
If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to:
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is no excuse not to understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ”
I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman have short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to covering as long hair and uncovered to mean short hair.
Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
Thanks for being thorough!
Definitely thorough and hard to refute. I think you hit the nail on the head. One of the best explanations that long hair is the covering.🤗💞
I have never heard this explanation before and it does make more sense than the standard temple explanation (which just didn't fit with the passage) Here is where it gets problematic. Suppose that Dr. Oster is correct and that we are dealing with the cultural worship patterns of the Roman Culture vs Greek and Hebrew culture. Paul doesn't go into an explanation as to why one must change their culture and the others may not. Which basically means I still don't know what to do with the passage. Fortunately I don't have to do anything with the passage, but it still is nice if passages have a purpose. The funny thing is that in the church of Christ I attend no women cover their heads, (maybe a couple do while a prayer is being offered, not sure) and none of them lead the prayers. The Orthodox church I attend on the other hand? All the women cover their head (though no one judges anyone else on it) and they also do a lot of the service. One of them also tried to trick me into wearing a headscarf (thankfully I knew this passage) Was it cultural? Maybe, does it still apply? The jury is out on that one. It is one thing to explain what was going on, it is quite another to determine what goes on today.
I am not entirely sure how to answer your question...I have some hunches but nothing super solid. Great question.
th-cam.com/video/WsubZywqOeU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/X1Zmjyvet_4/w-d-xo.html
This info blew my mind...I hope it opens your eyes as well!
Thank you so much for posting this. You’re right - this is the best explanation on this passage. I just ordered his commentary on Corinthians & am looking forward to reading it
@@vanessahemingway6940 I think you will really like his commentary!
"No such custom" means it is not a cultural issue. It is a principal commandment. If anyone is contentious about this you have no choice but to accept it as it is not a custom it is a commandment. You need to be careful with Paul's writings because he wrote with a special wisdom that is hard to understand if you are unlearned and unstable so to test your heart. 2 Peter 3:15-17
@@Caleb-fm1hp amen
@@Caleb-fm1hp You are correct.
Doctrine is such a tough thing to lay down like a good bricklayer. No wonder Paul said to give double honor to those who labor in word and doctrine. It is easier to generally teach (or preach) with a little-informed idea (or conviction) on what Scripture says rather than go deep, as this dear brother has done, to get the living stones to lay precious foundations of doctrine. You know someone has done a good job when what they teach unites, rather than divide the Ekklesia. Can anyone who loves the Lord fault this explanation of Scriptures? Methinks not. Thanks for sharing and helping to spread peace in the Body.
So glad you found it helpful! Great point.
Paul was teaching Headship and not head covering. If you do not understand the concept of Christ being the head of the man and the man is the head of the woman, you can not understand why it matters to God in the first place.
So help me understand a man having his head covered was wrong? What roll does Jesus play in this as being the head?
It's not a cultural issue (if you actually look back historically, women in Corinth had covered heads and uncovered heads and it was not scandalous at all, just personal preference). Pagan men did have their heads covered while praying. It's not a salvation issue, it is an OBEDIENCE issue. Sadly our culture today has cut this part out of the Bible! They will add to it and explain it away while in the same breath say that the Bible is the Holy inspired Word of God and God doesn't change according to our culture (which is true! And exactly why we should treat this passage with respect, diligence and obedience).
tpersonal preference?!!
The way I understand prayer and covering.....
Head covering is not for prayer. Paul resorts to prayer and prophesy to show how improper it would look for a woman revealing her head to come before the Lord in request or thanksgiving while at the same time not adhering do the Lord's request of covering the head.
It's something like this, "Lord please hear my prayer, as I am standing here before you and not obeying your will to cover my head."
It's not a salvation issue?
It's God commandments.
If we don't obey his commandments we will be left behind the closed door like the 5 foolish virgins were.
They claimed to be God's children, but DISOBEDIENT!
1 Samuel 15:23 (KJV) For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
Matthew 7:21-24 (KJV) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Something I didn’t realize; Islamic Imams cover their head when they prophesy. That is one of the many pagan practices of Islamists. Thank you for the information!
I'd disagree with Dr. Richard's argument on the bases of omitting 1 Corinthians 11:10 "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." I believe women should cover their heads when praying or prophesying as the scriptures say. Likewise, men shouldn't cover their heads and shouldn't keep long hair either. Also, I think Dr. Richard is too theological than spiritual [no offence please] but I do respect his views. I personally believe that Paul was speaking to all gentile churches, of both his day and future ones. Finally, anyone who's hard-pressed about this topic, just ask the Holy Spirit.
Because he was speaking to predominantly Gentile chuches is part of his point...that Jewish Christians wouldn't need these instructions because they didn't have the same pagan idolatrous background that the Gentile Christians had.
I wish I could like this a million times!! 🙌🏻🙏🏻♥️
Jesus had long hair , he was a Nazarene
How was Jeusu hair?
What does he say about 1st Corinthians 14 where it says let your women keep silent for they are not permitted to speak, and it is shameful for women to speak in church?
He doesn't address it. I do have a video on it though - th-cam.com/video/ad1J7xHdUa4/w-d-xo.html
I was told of a woman who wears her hat in bed because she says the scriptures says 'pray without ceasing'! The Bible does not mention what kind of head covering - scarf/shawl, hat. I have been in churches where a headband was considered a head-covering. Perhaps some could wear baseball caps (as even women do)! Does a woman wear a head-covering when she is in the worship team like a friend does?
* Starting Off on the Right Foot…
It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise.
* Where the problem usually begins…
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil and assumes that such a person already has long hair and is wrong for not doing so. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off.
Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered meaning has short hair would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair without a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to believe to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved.
* Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and uncovered."
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering."
If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as “short” hair.
* You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking….
If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to:
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is no excuse not to understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ”
I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman have short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to covering as long hair and uncovered to mean short hair.
Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
Thanks for posting this, Matt!
Glad to help. Great hearing from you!
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
This explanation of I Corinthians 11 has a lot that I agree with and a lot which is pure speculation. Dr. Oster's explanation as to the "Roman" cultural practice of heading coverings during 1st century in the "Roman" worship services is spot on. However, he assumes that such practice also took place in the "Christian assembly" without providing any explanation as to how he arrived as that conclusion. A quick reading of the text will reveal that the Paul never mentions the assembly in 1 Corinthians 11:2-15. Furthermore, Paul begins verse 18 by stating "for FIRST of all" when you come together in the church. If Paul was previously talking about Christians coming together to pray or prophesy in a Christian assembly, why would he say first of all if he had already previously been speaking on Christians coming together in verses 2-15? Verse 20 says when you assembly yourself together, verse 22 says do you despise ye the church (assembly) of God, verse 33 says when you come together to eat, and verse 34 states that your coming together be not unto judgment. The aforementioned verses clearly advise the reader that Paul is speaking in a Christian assembly (church) context but no such language is found in verse 2-15. In fact, Paul states that if anyone has an issue (is contentious) about what he wrote in verses 2-15, "we have no such practice, and neither do the churches of God. Here, Paul is saying we, which includes the Corinthian church(es) have no custom of head coverings and neither do any other Christian assemblies. Remember, although Paul was addressing a question which the Corinthian Christians wrote to him about various topics, his teaching was applicable to all Christians. We know this because Paul and Sosthenes begin I Corinthians by addressing it unto the church of God which is at Corinth, even them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, WITH ALL THAT CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD IN EVERY PLACE, their Lord and ours. I Cor. 1:2
In my judgment, to really understand I Corinthians 11, you really need to understand the structure of the entire letter to the Corinthians. Paul starts out by addressing issues that have been reported to him in Chapters 1-6. Chapters 7-16 deal with Paul answering questions which the Corinthians wrote to him. We know this because Chapter 7 begins with now concerning the things wherefore ye wrote. Paul goes on to address various questions and we know that he has moved on to a different question when he wrote "now concerning". Paul does this in Chapter 8, concerning food sacrificed to idols, Chapter 12 with spiritual gifts, and Chapter 16 with the offering. Therefore, until Paul changes the subject in Chapters 8, 9, 10, and 11, he is dealing with questions and issues that arise around food sacrificed to idols. If you look at I Corinthians 11 this way, it becomes clear that that the place in question in which the praying and prophesying took place by Christians was probably in a pagan assembly. Go back and read Chapters 8 and 10. Does Paul mention any public places that Christians might be at? If so, from Dr. Oster's presentation, were these places which Christians might go to the same places where Romans were known to cover their heads during their religious activities? Paul begins his instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:2 by saying that he praises the Corinthians Christians for remembering him and hold on to the traditions (or teachings) which he passed to them. Why would Paul state that they remembered him in their activity of praying and prophesying? If you read Acts 17 and 18, you will see that Paul's custom was to go to synagogues and Gentile gatherings to proclaim the gospel. I believe when Paul said you remembered me, he is telling the Corinthians Christians that you have followed in my footsteps by taking the gospel to pagans/gentiles, as I have done in my ministry. On a final note, if women were praying and prophesying in the Christian assembly (which is teaching the word by revelation), how would this not conflict with I Tim 2:8-15 where men are only mentioned as praying in the assembly and women are instructed not to teach men?
My impression and assumption is that the women's issue may be driving your view that he cannot be discussing the assembly rather than the context itself. Because it would seem if women pray and prophesy, as you pointed out, that it might conflict with 1 Tim 2:8-15. If we can iron out why women praying and prophesying in the assembly is not a violation of 1 Tim 2, then maybe it can be easier to see the actual context of 1 Cor 11. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it seems you are saying this on some level yourself.
Two things:
1 - the context of 1 Cor 11. You said there isn't an assembly context but I beg to differ. The assembly context goes back into chapter 10 when he brings up communion in verses 16 and 17. Some people add a detail not in the text - that this must be an assembly of women only. But it doesn't say that.
2 - ironing out 1 Tim 2. If you read all of 1 Tim 2 you will notice Paul uses the word "silent" twice. First in verse 2 and then 9 verses later in verse 11. That words has a range of meaning from complete silence to being peaceable. Paul didn't instruct them to live a completely silent life in the world in verse 2. Is it possible Paul is also then not saying women must be completely silent in verse 11? In most churches women are not completely silent anyway. None of this precludes women from doing what Paul instructed them to do in 1 Cor 11 - pray and prophesy in the assembly. Both work out together.
@@revolutionofordinaries -thanks for the reply. I agree that the context of I Corinthians 11:2-15 is an assembly/public context, I just don't see any evidence that the assembly is a Christian assembly. Please go back and reread my comment, I mentioned a pagan assembly.
With your second point, I don't believe Paul is telling women to be completely silent in I Tim. 2. If he was saying this, women could not say amen, sing, etc, in the Christian assembly. I do believe he omits women praying publicly in the assembly (see I Tim 3:15, where Paul states that the things he wrote before (so 1 Tim. 2) pertains to how Christians are to behave or conduct themselves in the house of God). When it comes to teaching in the assembly (church), women are not to teach men, but they are instructed by the Holy Spirit to learn in quietness with all subjection. Paul grounds the reasoning for this position in the creation narrative just as he does in I Corinthians 11:2-15 in explaining men are the head of women just like God is the head of Christ. This clearly does not mean that women are inferior to men, but it speaks to the fact that submission and order are principles in the Godhead which God and Christ expect to be followed by men and women who are made in their image.
Also, regarding your assumption that I Tim. 2 is driving my view, what is the context of 1 Corinthians 11? Is Paul still dealing with questions/issues regarding food sacrificed to idols? If not, what evidence do you have in scripture that he is addressing another question given to him by the Corinthians? The only evidence in scripture that I see, which shows that he has moved on to another topic, which is not dealing with culture issues pertaining to food sacrificed to idols is the fact that he starts I Corinthians 12 off by saying now concerning spiritual gifts. Notice he does not start I Corinthians 11 off by saying now concerning head coverings. Also, remember that Paul spent 18 months in Corinth (see Acts. 18). Why do you believe the Corinthian Christians started abusing the Lord's Supper when they came together after Paul had been with them for over a year? Could it be that they were mimicking the behavior they witnessed at pagan feasts when they attended them? The original text did not have chapters and verses like we have so go back and reread Chapter 8 ,9, and 10 and see if Paul changes the questions/issues pertaining to food sacrificed to idols when you get to Chapter 11. If he does, what evidence in scripture do you see that shows he is addressing another question which is unrelated to food sacrificed to idols? Dr. Oster even conceded in his prestation that the head coverings were worn by "Romans" during their pagan worship services when they were sacrificing food and praying and prophesying.
As you and I both know there were no chatter divisions when Paul write it. Paul is writing to a house church or a letter circulated to the house churches in Corinth. He is writing about aspects that affect their communal life and worship. People prayed and prophesied in the assembly, which Paul is addressing. He is not addressing praying or prophesying privately at home.
He started the idol conversation back in 10 before what you are referencing and directly talks about corporate wishful via communion, which you aren’t addressing. They had communion as a meal at that time. It all fits together when he connects communion to eating. And that flows right into prayer/prophesy worship practices which then goes right back to communion. It is all corporate worship and it doesn’t violate 1 Tim 2 per my explanation above. If women are to be silent and not pray or prophesy they can’t sing either as that isn’t being silent. But no one practices that.
@@revolutionofordinaries - I forgot to address your mentioning of the Lord's Supper in I Corinthians 10. Here Paul is using the Lord's Supper as an illustration to demonstrate that if Christians partake of food that they are know is sacrificed to idols they are sharing or having communion with something which is sacrificed to a demon. This illustration makes sense because Christians know that the cup of blessing which we bless is the sharing of the blood of Christ. Therefore, sharing food which a Christian knows is sacrificed to an idol is idolatry because they are communing/sharing of food which has been sacrificed to demons. Paul also uses the example of priests in the Old Testament sharing/eating the food which was sacrificed at the altar. Furthermore, Paul goes on in Chapter 10 to talk about how Christians should handle meat which is sold in markets or eating meat when they are invited to a feast (I wonder where the feast could be? See Chapter 8).
I watched this the whole way through and I'm still just as confused as before. I appreciate your efforts though my brother. A more clear audio would be appreciated next time (no offense).
it was recorded from a classroom lecture about 20 years ago :)
Everything is audible to me but I'm still as confused. 😢
It says that this was an issue because of the angels, not because of the Roman practices. It was a sign to the angels of a woman's obedience in accepting the authority of the men over the women in God's hierarchy to wear a head covering. It was a sign to both good and bad angels. Remember in Gen. how some of the angels came down and took the women as their wives? I don't know why people have so much trouble accepting what this says. It's pretty clear to me.
It can be both.
He starts out well, but misses the biggest point in V10 "Because of the Angels" The scripture is saying to be modest honoring one another's spouse, because there is a risk of the Angels of Gen 6, watching women that are seen as being loose, or impious. Key to this understanding is the word cover - περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) in v 15. This word is NOT a veil or mantel as Strong's might say, but something very different and is related to a sexual process.
He’s been studying for 50 years and he’s a theologian so what can we say.
Thanks for sharing this, but I would have liked to have heard the entire message! What I heard followed totally in line with what I believed these passages were teaching back in the 1980's. I had to settle this because I was a woman in God's church who was a teacher and I needed to know if men could be present in my classes and how I could be properly related to male authority within the church. I would have loved to have heard what he believes the modern day application of these passages could be. Thanks for sharing!
I wish I had that audio!!!! Yes! Maybe I can get him to do a followup with that info.
Its not that difficult. What is the main reason Paul wrote this? Authority. This text is about autority. If you look at Genesis, psalms, Efeze 5, Galatians 1 Peter and also 1 Corinthians 11 it is clear that man is given authority over woman. The same authority that Christ had. A serving authority.
Paul makes the statement about the head covering because only whores had no veil. It is a SIGN of respect. Would be the same as a woman (or man!!!) Who goes to a bar and puts of their wedding rings.... Disrespect. So the authority is grounded in Genesis but the example Paul gives to mark his words is a cultural one.
It was not just the Romans who covered their heads. Jews did as well, example 2 Sam15:30. The high priest of Israel also wore a head covering exodus 29:6 and we are a priesthood 1 Peter 2 9-10. God instructed the garments for the priests. Woman also wore coverings Numbers 5 18-19. It is about honoring God. Even the angles cover their heads isaiah 6: 1-3. Woman have always worn head coverings in church and it only changed with woman's lib and interestingly enough the divorce rate then started to increase.
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.)
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)
Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
-excerpt John 12
There was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear
a fabric covering.
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
My thoughts: post length 7 minutes
Reply for post if desired. It includes scriptures and commentary.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! This was very helpful.
Appreciate your enthusiasm! Thanks for watching and taking the time to comment. I hope you will take a few minutes and check out a few more videos.
This guy sounds pretty sharp. Insights here that were new to me.
A world class scholar on Ephesus and ancient coins...he knows his stuff. Taught me first year Koine Greek...hard class!
Very interesting. It feels cut off though with no guidance on application for today.
Agreed...it was part of a University lecture so maybe that came later.
I so appreciate this!
Glad it was helpful Tammie! Great hearing from you! - Matt
But why did Paul say in the same chapter that all the churches were doing this if this was just for Corinth?
What verse are you thinking of where he says all the churches were doing this? I am not aware of that verse.
People skip right over the scripture that say her hair is given for a covering. The hair long hair is the covering. Thats why a man shouldnt have long hair. And thats why it say if she doesnt have a covering she might as well be shaved. The scripture is talking about long hair. Man is the glory of God. God dont have long hair. Woman are Glory of men they have long hair.
Respectfully, I listened to most of this message, and I still don't know what this man was trying to say.
Theology is so confusing; but then again that is its purpose. (Isaiah 28:13)
The matter is really very simple:
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."
1 Corinthians 11:3-6
When a Christian woman prays or prophesies, her head is covered. And, Christians pray without ceasing. So, a Christian woman's veil is a part of her daily dress.
Her long hair is given to her as a covering, to cover her back, shoulders, and breasts, and it is a part of her nakedness, and it is a glory to her.
So, just as the rest of her nakedness, her long glorious hair is covered when she is praying or prophesying, or anywhere in public. Any place that it is proper for her to be fully dressed, it is also proper for her head to be covered. The only man that should see her long hair is her husband, in private.
Amen.
We have a follow up video. I have new audio from Dr. Oster where he gives some of the background and follows it up with practical implications for today! Here is it - th-cam.com/video/cpIyqPw0v20/w-d-xo.html
The scripture being referred to doesn't say men have to have their heads covered, that's the women.
1 Corinthians 11:4 NLT
A man dishonors his head if he covers his head while praying or prophesying.
He shows inscriptions and statues with men covering their heads during SACRIFICES but zero evidence that this is related to "prayer and prophesying". Right?
When I grew up, most woman had nice hats on in church. Men took their hats off in church or inside a building or praying.
That was certainly the tradition in many circles. Thanks for leaving a comment and watching!
That was great. I would love to know what he thinks about it in this day and age.
Hats look nice on everyone and add a certain grace. Not sure if I understand the head covering thing…
Wish this was condensed.
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while
assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off.
So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head
when praying to God.
If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair
each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
Yes..in Greek the words are diiferent. Ck out "her hair is given her for 'covering' in Greek. Then see word for covering in Greek in rest of passage.
Not true here is some biblical logic and evidence:
It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise.
* Where the problem usually begins…
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil and assumes that such a person already has long hair and is wrong for not doing so. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off.
Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered meaning has short hair would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair without a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to believe to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved.
* Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and uncovered."
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering."
If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as “short” hair.
* You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking….
If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to:
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is no excuse not to understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ”
I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman have short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to covering as long hair and uncovered to mean short hair.
Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
Yes, yes, yes, it is crystal clear in verse six!!!! 👏🏻🙌🏻🙏🏻♥️
The issue I see has to do with what the covering is supposed to be and under what conditions it is to be applied. I'm not thoroughly settled on this, but feel at this point that the covering was hair, not a physical object. If it is a physical object, it is supposed to be more of what we would call a veil which would wrap around the head (based on the Greek word). Though some claim that the covering is to be worn all of the time, it is clear that Paul ties it specifically to prayer and prophesying (probably public and in church). i have heard the "all of the time" argument and think it's very weak.
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.)
...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'.
My thoughts: post length 7 minutes, scriptures outside of Corinthians mostly
Essay by another: post length 7 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians
Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary.
@@8784-l3b hey! Do you still have those posts handy?
So why arent we doing this in the meetings when we should be?
Hi there
Thank you for this. Do you have this in written form? I can‘t hear / understand it too well.
No, sorry. Wish I did! Check out the second version - th-cam.com/video/cpIyqPw0v20/w-d-xo.html
turn on subtitles or look at the transcript
Loved it.
Thank you for your comment! So glad it was helpful. Please come back another time and let us hear from you!
To those who seek the truth, St. Paul writes and speaks plainly in 1 Corinthians 11, and you are not wrong that you understand what he plainly states -- women *should* cover their heads while in the divine presence. That was the practice in the Jewish temple, and it was carried over to Christian assemblies for the Lord's Supper, and that is why it is necessary. St. Paul warns against offending angels for this reason.
The truth of the matter is that this began with men covering their heads as well, just as the first Christians would practice in the Temple in Jerusalem when it was there, and then men would uncover after the prayers of consecration to acknowledge the presence of a superior as was the custom, and which we continue to this very day, of men uncovering the head in recognition of a superior, as in the military, or of an important person otherwise. So it does not indicate inferiority for women; rather it is a sign of *reverence* before the divine.
Thanks for leaving a comment and watching!
This is good historical information but added to my confusion. His explanation was not conclusive. I have been a born again, evangelic, protestant Christ follower for 45 years. Just in the last few months has this chapter really started to minister to me. I can not seem to get it off my mind. Why do the churches I have gone to my entire life not have head coverings for women? Why do I wear a hat to church sometimes and not feel bad about it? There is major confusion in our present day about gender roles and how we are to align with biblical authority over us. I feel this liturgical "tradition" would help so many people. It is beautiful and at the same time would/will be difficult for me to obey. It feels very Amish/Mennonite ish horse and buggy feeling. I don't fully get it still, but I sure get the main thrust of the passage. We are out of line with genders and submission to Gods authority and I think if we preached this as it is clearly written in 1 Corinthians 11 people would be set free. The original genesis deception of Satan was "Did God really say?". I think we might be doing something similar hear. Did God really say to "cover the woman's head" as a sign/symbol of who the woman belongs to and who the man belongs to? Lord help us obey your word as your word reveals your heart. I think a few other people have mentioned the idea of "explaining away" the scripture. I agree! Why do we get to this portion of scripture and try and explain it away rather than explain an application for us/me? Even the main idea of the portion of scripture is explained away because of the historical/roman/prostitute/tonga/cultural... Paul specifically says keep this TRADITION so that you can keep this PRINCIPLE of gender role alignment in proper biblical order. But for me this is going to be hard. "Hard is the way that leads to life and few find it"
Sorry it seemed to make things a bit more confusing but I appreciate you watching it.
* Starting Off on the Right Foot…
It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. Therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise.
* Where the problem usually begins…
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for not doing so and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off.
Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered (meaning has short hair) would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair “without” a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved.
* Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and uncovered."
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering."
If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair.
* You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking….
If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to:
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ”
I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
The thing that always stands out to me is this:
When you ask someone why women shouldn’t wear head coverings in church you get a gigantic, overly-long, hoop-jumping, explanation of how this one passage in scripture is no longer applicable and is merely traditional and not a command from God, despite the church wearing head coverings for nearly 2,000 years.
However, when you ask someone who believes in head coverings why head coverings should be worn, they simply say
“Because the Bible says to.”
The Bible also says greet with holy kisses. It says they met in homes. It says they washed feet...and Jesus commanded them to continue doing that into the future. Lots of things can be given a "because the Bible says to" explanation - so why do we do some and not do others?
Amen! Best answer ever….because the Bible says so!!!! 👏🏻🙌🏻🙏🏻
Everyone is always looking for an excuse not to obey Christ. It’s heartbreaking.
Would God include this if it was simply cultural and not intended for every person?
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.)
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)
Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
-excerpt John 12
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
My thoughts: post length 7 minutes
Reply for post if desired. It includes scriptures and commentary.
Yes, of course he would. The Bible was written in a specific time and place to specific people in a specific culture. That doesn't mean none of it matters. It just means you have to pay attention to what was going on in their world and then try to understand the principle being taught and whether or not we have anything like that going on today.
@@revolutionofordinaries
Women were not wearing a fabric head covering
for spiritual reasons in very very early Christianity.
It wasn't even in the Law. Eventually, certainly by
the time of Clement of Alexandria, the false teaching
of a fabric covering came to be. It still continues
to some extent.
...but because it has also been enjoined that the head should be veiled and the face covered; for it is
a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men. Nor is it seemly for a woman to wish to make herself
conspicuous, by using a purple veil. Would it were possible to abolish purple in dress, so as not to turn the eyes of spectators on the face of those that wear it! But the women, in the manufacture of
all the rest of their dress, have made everything of purple, thus inflaming the lusts.
-Clement of Alexandria from his 'The Instructor'
at about 198 A.D.
This is getting long, but Paul knew the priests of the Old
Covenant were REQUIRED by scripture to wear turbans.
All this can only mean the long hair of a woman is the 'covering'.
From my main post on this subject below:
_____________________________________
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
I thought this was very informative. Ty sir
So glad it was helpful!
Not only did he assume ( His words ) but he says I think. He then completely misses the thrust of God's teaching. This has nothing to do with a cultural argument, but everything to do with The Holy Spirit inspiring Paul to teach God's commandments 2 Tim. 3: 16-17. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Which commandment?
So, basically did he deny that women must wear head coverings here?
Have you watched the video?
The woman who wash Jesus feet in his presence was her head covered?
Didn’t she wash His feet with her hair?
Greatest Sermon Everrrrrrr The Sermon on the Mount ...was woman wearing head coverings?
This totally makes sense.
So glad it was helpful!
I listened to the whole thing but the question should women wear a covering wasn’t answered. Should they?
No. He is saying it had religious ramifications then that don’t overlap today. You might read this from him - renew.org/on-gender-and-the-bible-whats-up-with-head-coverings-in-1-corinthians-11-part-2/
* Where the problem usually begins… (I)
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil.
A typical question from those who are against hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot.
So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off.
Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being shaven than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Think about it.
* Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II)
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered."
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering."
If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic.
* You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III)
If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to:
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ”
I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
(originally posted by FA)
1:15 "This is not a letter to a church in the Bible belt"
1 Corinthians 1:2: "To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with *all those who in every place* call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:" (emphasis added)
Oops.
Paul uses arguments in 1 Corinthians 11 from creation and the headship order (God -> Christ, Christ -> Man, Man -> Woman). This means that head coverings are a trans-cultural, timeless Christian custom.
Ch 1:2 states .... to all that call upon the name of the Lord IN EVERY PLACE. This is not just a cultural issue affecting Corinth. Men of a Jewish background were used to wearing a prayer cap. The man is the glory of Christ and the glory of Christ must be seen in the gathered company. The woman is the glory of the man and his glory should be hidden. This is the teaching of headship. The woman where possible assumes her dignified place of submission (not inferiority) by growing her glory or hair long declaring her womanhood. She wears the veil or second covering to signify she has submitted to Godly order in the church. Paul explains this clearly in the chapter so that there is no abuse of position or power by the men. Further light is given in 1 Timothy 2:9-15. Of course this conflicts with modern ideas but God will ever honour those who honour Him.
THAT was one of my arguements. In all of my research no one pointed that out! That it seems to address everyone else in Christ.
What was all that about who is the head of who then? Why is that there, when presumably it was info that was already clear unless he was using it as an example for further verses. I think this is about authority, submission and role.
I wonder if "because of the angels" may be similar to the GR. angelos (pastors) mentioned in each of the 7 churches in Rev ch 1-3? Could it be to not cause frustration/discouragement to pastors? Michael Heiser mentions woman's hair in roman times was considered a sexual organ..
I don't think that is it. He would have used another word like presbuteros, imo. Angellos can mean humans but it isn't frequent - Luke 9:52, Luke 7:24, James 2:25, Mark 1:2, Luke 7:27. That's about it.
Read the amplified version to see what it says or how it translates the portion dealing with the the angels. It's much more clear!
This has never been a problem for me because in the whole Biblethere is only one witness, the Bible says to make a doctrine you need two or three witnesses; and also a verse just below says clearly a woman’s hair is her covering.
Enjoyed it
Thank you so much!
It's very clear in 1corinthians11:14_16 that a woman's hair was given her for a covering.
So did the woman in Ephesus cover their head? Also I understand that it was a Roman practice that they brought in because of their customs .
What if our husbands do not want us to cover our heads and we don’t care either way.
...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.
@@MarthaM-xq6sv well I already don’t attend the American Babylon church they are 501c3. As far as my reading and praying goes my hair is my head covering so since he doesn’t want me to I’m going to respect him because he is also my head ❤️😁
We can also see that a woman's hair was/is treated differently in the book of revelation 9:8.
What is the noise in the back ground? It's extremely distracting.
It was recorded in a classroom setting about 25 years ago.
what does covering the head have to do with angels?
Are you gonna obey God or are you gonna question Him. God says His ways is not man's way so we are call to obedience even when we don't understand. The truth of God is revealed in obedience. What is written must be obeyed it does not matter how people try to neglect them.
Angels are invisible powers acting to enforce God's Order (Powers and principalities), The covering is an outward sign of that invisible authority upon her. (Like a Badge is a sign to let someone know of the Authority a police officer has.) The covering let's everyone know she's married/under her husbands authority.
Try Michael Heiser
@@jasonbourne5142 I am actually familar with his answer - I was just looking to see if anyone else was. I have a couple of his books - unseen realm and reversing hermon. i will at some point buy angels and demons (though not the dan brown version!!!)
@@leviticusemmanuel4421 the Bible also commands us to be gentle, kind and loving
This is really interesting. So basically what you're saying is this is a Roman issue.. Having said that? I like the idea of women wearing hats. I just like it. Not rags. You shouldn't look like a cleaning woman when you go to church. Or anywhere else for that matter but in my mind? In context of this lecture? I might be misinterpreting, but what I hear is, in God's eyes, men and women are equal. And that the head covering for women or hat is Symbolic of that period Women Where their hair long. It's a distinction between men and women traditionally. You cover that and you become equal. See what I'm saying?
Actually come on I could practically write a book about this in context of more modern times. And how it still applies. Not just head covering but just the whole package. Everywhere from your home to how you are in the workplace. It's a powerful thing. But I really like this period I've never seen it that way. A woman but an equal standing.
I have recently started wearing a head covering again when I came upon a woman wearing one n Kroger. I believe it was God leading & several times after that I saw women with their heads covered.Aktho I am nlo longer living with my husband, I believe I am t wear it.
Listen, l don't want to talk much, all of you both pastors and those that comment, do you have Holy Spirit at all? The things of God and bible, if there's any controversial issue can't someone ask the Holy Spirit for clearance? Rather some people are saying their own mind and feeling, which is not proper. Let me tell you from my spiritual experience, that command of covering head must be adhered to. Period.
And if someone else consults the Holy Spirit and gets a different answer than you, then what?
@@revolutionofordinaries Can the Holy spirit speak two tongues? If you have your own finding from the Holy spirit, share it out.
Were the women praying and prophesying in groups of women only? Or were men present? If it was mixed wouldn't that contradict the passage that says women should keep silent? Can we agree that either way is speculation.
The women he told to be silent were being disruptive in 1 Cor 14 - as he tells them that if they have questions they should ask them at home. There is a reason Paul told them to be silent in 14 and to speak in 11, imo.
There is always a degree of speculation in trying to iron out various texts because we weren't there to get the whole story. So we do the best we can with what we have. Good question!
The best explanation of Head coverings in 1 Corinthians that doesn't actually deal with the text of 1 Corinthians. Very weird
...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.
@@8784-l3b Respectfully, your response is both lacking in exegetical ability concerning the text and does not address my comment in any way
That is weird. Unfortunately too many people like to focus on anything other than the scriptures and that is true on both sides of this topic (those who think veil and those who think hair). Law of Liberty channel has a nice explanation I think.
Look up a commentary on this subject by J.B. Nicholson at Voices for Christ. Look for his name and his talk on 1 Corinthians 11.
Thank you for the recommendation.
The problem with head covering is that since itus now counter cultural, one might be tempted to wear a hat or veil as a display of piety. Yes St Paul advised wonen to cover their heads. But Jesus appreciated it when a woman washed his feet and then dried them with her unbound hair. Also Jesus advised us to not pray in a boastful way but to pray quietly in our closet (private room). All things are lawful but not necessarily good. Women who adopt head coverings should carefully consider their reasons .