For a Glory and a Covering | Doug Wilson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 фев 2023
- One of the very real problems in our era is that modern Christian women have gotten accustomed to non-stop affirmation. It has become non-stop because it is obligatory, and any failure to display such affirmation is taken as an assault on all women everywhere. Identity politics has trained us, whenever a specific critique is made of an individual of a class being currently protected, that critique is pounced upon, rendered general by induction, and applied to each and every member of that class.
Doug Wilson's Blog & Mablog video is presented by @CanonPress 
Развлечения
The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church?
- R.C. Sproul
Fabric coverings were forced upon women. This started
at about 198 A.D. as Clement of Alexandria wrote about...
and also approved of.
********************************
...head should be veiled and the face covered...
But I do not wish chaste women to afford cause for such praises to those who, by
praises, hunt after grounds of censure; and not only because it is prohibited to expose the ankle,
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.
Bingo
True - just like jewellery and braided hair. But that is allowed now as well. The Bible is clear on these points.
I grew up in the 90s and in my infantile mind anytime id see a woman with a head covering I instinctively knew she was going to church. It was an image that was deeply engrained in my 6 year old brain despite the fact I knew nothing about 1 Corinthians 11. In less than a generation, the practice has all but eroded.
@@choicemeatrandy6572
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.)
Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
-excerpt John 12
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
My thoughts: post length 7 minutes
Reply for post if desired. It includes scriptures and
commentary.
We ought to feel honored that we have a special place in created order. We shame the fallen angels who were not content with their created order when we cover our heads and when we honor and respect our husbands. It’s so beautiful what the LORD has done!
Wow, never heard it said like that before!
The other side of the Corinthian scripture is Our Manly Precious Lord Jesus Christ did NOT have LONG HAIR !!!
Woah. This is eloquently put!
@@jerryshunk7152 huh?!
It’s amazing what you can do for yourself when you unsubscribe from this outrageous ideology.
The uproar was good marketing; made me go listen to the covenant household. And as I suspected, pastor Wilson was calling husbands to lead and respect their wives not insult the wives. So good 😊
I began covering my head at church when I started to go to our church. I do feel that it honors God to do so based on scripture.
Speak Up for Truth
I post on this matter a lot, with scriptures and
commentary. A women's long hair is her 'covering'.
Reply if desired.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
“A good friend of mine with the odd name of Ibid”
Doug Wilson is our CS Lewis of today, and should be treasured as such.
I always think this.
Agreed
My left ear enjoyed that.
It wasn't just me?? I thought their ordinarily sound sound was unbalanced on this one.
Head coverings?
Doug Wilson = eight minutes
Mike Winger = six hours and forty-five minutes
Both are greatly appreciated.
Joel Webbon and Bnonn Tennant: 1 hr
Just right
do they arrive at the same answer?
@@Zaloomination my recommendation concludes cloth head covering is intended
Winger should not be held up as a good teacher. He is not reformed, he does not believe in God's sovereignty over salvation, and he is a soft complementarian. These are enough to disqualify him, until he repents.
@@Zaloomination No. Mike has the common "not for today" view.
I believe a covering is some type of material. I believe this because it talks also of a man must remove his covering when praying. Certainly it doesn’t mean he is to remove his hair. I try to wear a headband or hat when I pray. I’m 61 and remember women wearing pill hats in church. I love the order God created.
Good point about the men not covering their hair.
Then why do Jews wear those caps on their head?
The priests of the Old Covenant were required, by scripture,
to wear turbans. Paul knew this. The 'covering' is the hair itself.
I have my thoughts on this, as well as an essay by 'FA' should
you want more information.
@@emilykovacs777 because all other religions but Christianity are false and perversions of the created order. In Roman religion, both sexes covered, in Greek, both were uncovered, and in Talmudic Judaism after Christianity began spreading, the men covered and not the women. Satan was busy with making counterfeits that did things the wrong way. In Godst hierarchy, men are uncovered and the women covered
A headband will not cover your hair. All gold, jewellery and braided hair should be banned, and a full covering should be used.
Thank you for this. So clear. I believe the hysterical reactions are a direct result of fathers not teaching their daughters these foundations. Thank you for stepping up and filling this monumental gap, and as always, with that characteristic twinkle in your eye.
The apostle Paul did not teach that a woman should cover her head he was un teaching
The Jewish laws that had infiltrated the church God did not create eve with a head covering he gave her hair and I was with the apostle Paul says you’re covering
Loved this , and it is a high calling, that we should gladly oblige in obedience to our Lord and in respect for our husbands.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
* Why do some say these passages refer only to married people?
Now I’m sure some will reply saying the glory of the woman (aka the long hair) was only meant for the husband to see. This belief is not because of some scripture that details this since it does not exist. It is mainly due to bias and misunderstanding of the word “woman” to mean wife. The same can be said for the word “man” to falsely mean husband. Nowhere does it say that the woman’s glory was only meant for the husband to see it is completely made up.
As noted earlier the words “husband,” “wife,” “marriage” or anything similar are not found but veil promoters will claim that that is what they are referring to. This is a classic case of reading more into what the Scriptures are actually stating. But the way it is structured gives the strong impression that it is referring GENERALLY to ALL men and women NOT just married couples. Some people have stated that the words “man” and “woman” are interchangeable for “husband” and “wife” but if we read the context of the passages, we can see that this cannot be the case. For example, verses 8 and 9 delve into the order of creation, which obviously includes everyone whether they are married or not.
“For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women.
“EVERY man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But EVERY woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
You will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts if you were to exchange the words above for husband and wife, because then it would seem like all the single men CAN wear a covering or all the single women can be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure many veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
On this topic someone once mentioned about “submission” for example “The clearest explanation, Paul’s is referring to a natural cover and a material covering to symbolize her submission to her husband.” Even though there is no mention of the word submission in this topic yet because of the misinterpretation of the word “man” or “woman” they have construed the idea that this passage refers to husbands and wives. But like I mentioned before would not make sense, not to mention the idea of submission which they somehow wrongfully included in this passage.
Lastly, how can one navigate these passages correctly if one were to claim that the words they are reading do not mean what they state? How can one tell when they read the word "man" they really mean "a male person" and not “husband” and the same thing goes for the words: woman and wife? If one were to argue they were referring to married couples, then how one can expect anyone to believe what they read? The logical thing to do is to understand what they mean by the context of the verses and in this case, they are referring to ALL men and women.
The apostle Paul did not command you to cover your head he is teaching the opposite he is stating the problem that existed in the church and then he’s giving the answer he says in verse 16 I have no such custom nor do the churches of God
God did not create Eve with a head covering he gave her hair
@@shellystone3211 I may have stated this somewhat differently but in essence I have to agree with you. Paul is not commanding anyone to cover or even uncover their heads.
Your comment on Eve is a good point.
Thank you pastor Wilson.
We attend a church where women are to cover their heads for worship. These ladies are highly respected by their husbands as should be.
Do you agree with what Wilson says here that the covering is the woman's long hair?
@@Zaloomination does it matter?
@@Zaloomination That is what Paul says... He specifically also mentions what it means if a woman's head is shaved....
@@statesrights01 I think Mikez may be expressing that it’s great that your church believes that women should have a head covering during worship or prayer, but is perplexed as to why the women add an additional head covering, as their long hair is already their head covering as described by Paul in scripture. If a woman’s head was shaved or her hair was extremely short, it would make sense to wear a covering. I guess I’m curious as well why the women wear a double covering. Honest question, no animosity.
@@MapleBoarder78 So this is an interesting discussion, and as I understand the passage, I actually think Doug is wrong on this one. Looking at the passage in question, 1 Corinthians 11, it would seem to make nonsense out of Paul's logic if he is saying that the hair is the covering.
"But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-it is the same as having her head shaved." -1 Corinthians 11:4
Consider, if being shorn or shaved is what it means to be uncovered, then why is Paul treating them as two different things?
I do think our hair is *a* covering (1 Cor 11:15), but as it is also our glory, it seems that we are called to cover it -- specifically during corporate worship, which is the topic of that whole chapter.
The best explanation of this position that I have seen comes from Right Response Ministries. If you're interested, check out this video: ruclips.net/video/xMCgCDIbWiU/видео.html
1 Corinthians 11:6 "For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short." If the covering is long hair, then a wife who is not covering her head has short hair? Then she should cut her hair short? Isn't it short already? If this is about hair and not a covering is it okay for a man to wear a hat as long as his hair is short? Also, what is short hair, is that cultural or is there a specific length? For almost two thousand years the church understood that women are to wear a covering. Shortly after the introduction of the new fangled idea of it being not a covering, but the long hair itself, men can get pregnant.
You don't think the manly SON of ALMIGHTY JEHOVAH; our Precious Lord Jesus Christ had Long Hair as so many many pictures portray HIM ; Do You ?
@@jerryshunk7152 Nope. As a side note, I consider it further proof of the Bible's divine inspiration that the New Testament does not have a single reference to physical appearance of Jesus.
@@joferg12 yes, that’s how we know he was a black Muslim
@@jerryshunk7152 One theory is that early portraitists confused Jesus of Nazareth with the religious order of the Nazirites, who vowed not to cut their hair. Or possibly the influence of sacred Roman icons lead artists to identify Jesus as the king of kings with patriarchs of Olympus; Neptune and Jupiter, bearded men with long manes of hair. Pagan gods who were associated with water, like Neptune, were often depicted with long flowing hair. Jesus is described as walking on water, turning it into wine, and, in early paintings, he’s often shown above the four rivers of paradise. Early Christians might have favored the long-haired Jesus because they identified that hairstyle with water gods.
@@aallen5256 Interesting, the first one I had heard B4; but the second one fits perfectly with the way the early Catholic church superimposed the "Pagan," ( think holidays & places of worship,) with the early, " Christian!" The expedient political is so very rarely concerned with Accuracy, let alone TRUTH ~~~ Thanx for chimin' in AA !
Glorious!
So thankful for how God uses Doug Wilson to communicate the simple truths of reality, may the true church hold fast in the rip tide of evil.
Hoping Pastor Wilson's health is alright, and remains so another forty years and more.
Good words.👍
Most people now days are just look for any reason to be offended, it's spiritual. I say don't sweat the small stuff and give the rest of it to God. Blessed Days...
Very deep.
I really appreciated Joel Webbons discussion on it too. Pretty compelling arguments I think.
I agree.
I actually disagree that the woman’s covering IS her hair. It is a physical covering, and meant for use while praying. It is a cultural marker, but I don’t believe that Christians should interpret it as “only if your church practices it” because it’s a representation of headship… much like a wedding band would symbolize marriage.
I also think it has nothing to do with “looking good.” If my husband cares for me, I can use that to in turn care for my family - all for the glory of Christ. This whole tangent rubs me the wrong way because it’s not far off from the ‘Girl, Wash Your Face’ premise where we just have to try harder if we somehow find ourselves lacking. I realize that this isn’t the intention, but more context is going to be needed to get past that. I do know, however, that presenting myself well for my husband’s sake isn’t really a true interpretation of the head covering issue. It could be a side effect, but definitely not the main point.
The 'covering' is the hair. Reply if you want my
scriptures and thoughts. I post on this matter a lot.
The word is not the same word when Paul talks about the hair, in the Greek. And do men take off their hair to worship? Internal consistency says it’s a cloth covering
@@cosmictreason2242
Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
-NASB version
If the above scripture means a turban, for example, why would God require the priests to
wear turbans? Paul certainly would have known about this and maybe seen it.
You shall speak to all the skillful people whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may serve as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of checkered work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to Me.
-excerpt Exodus 28
Jesus prayed with something on His head while on the cross. A crown of thorns.
And they dressed Him in purple, and after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; and they began saluting Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!”
-excerpt Mark 15
And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” And having said this, He died.
-excerpt Luke 23
*******************************************
At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we?
“Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much.
-excerpt Luke 7
Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone...
-excerpt John 12
*************
It can only mean the hair is the covering, as the NASB states here:
Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering.
************
No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering.
Therefore no Old Testament reference available.
1 Corinthians 11 starts with this:
...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you...
Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered...
According to scripture, Paul was a young man when Jesus left the earth.
As it says regarding the death of Stephen, not a long time after the
crucifixion of Jesus:
...laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul...
-from Acts 7
So Paul was about 20 years old at this point. Give or take.
So, there was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. There was no time to establish a tradition of a fabric covering. There was no way to "hold firmly to the traditions" because you can't start a 'tradition' in a period of time that is just a few years.
************
If the covering was a physical covering, then hair length is
irrelevant. No one would know if the woman had long hair
or no hair.
************
Also, if a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before
she can communicate with God, that would make the fabric covering
an idol. But one could also say it was a talisman I suppose, since a
talisman could be an article of clothing.
************
There is also an essay by 'FA'. It's about a 5 minute read.
The full essay is available if requested. Once again one must
keep in mind when reading the essay, that women were not
using a fabric covering as a requirement of the Law. So it was
not part of the culture then.
That is confirmed by the events of Jesus with the 2 women above
and also the scriptures that discourage women from braiding their hair.
If women were commonly wearing a head covering in public
no one would have known about this braiding.
Their head and hair would have been covered by the fabric.
...likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,...
-excerpt 1 Timothy 2 ESV
Do not let your adorning be external-the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear- but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart...
-excerpt 1 Peter 3 ESV
Excerpt here of post by FA:
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?
Hi Doug and Canon, I tried to listen to this episode on Apple Podcasts but the audio it played was in fact the same as the previous episode, “Christ or Chemosh?” Perhaps there was a mix up in the publishing process?
Turns out the word for “covering” when it refers to hair is not the same word as all the other times “covering” is used in the passage
Yea study tge original language of the passage. The covering a woman should wear is to be hanging like hair but is not hair. The term used is one for a hanging cover like a veil. The reference to a women's long hair as a cover in nature highlights also the specific word used that is a hanging covering in addition to the hair. Adam and eve covered with fig leaves and it wasn't an adequate covering so God made them clothes of skin.
@Gus Shredney they didn’t have organized corporate worship then
@Gus Shredney After the fall, it would seem that 'yes' is the correct answer.
@@MD-ef9fl There was no Old Covenant law requiring
women to wear a fabric covering.
It precisely because this glorious truth has been forgotten in pulpits that Christian women and others buck at this.
Amen if you need deep teaching listen to this
Mr. Doug I agree that often times a women's appearance reflects how well the husband is loving his wife.
Fire house subs and Doug.
Hey Doug, if the covering is just hair does that mean that it is not sinful for a man, who’s hair is cut short, to wear whatever hat he wants while participating in worship?
If you look at the passage he presents (1 Cor 11:15), the hair of the woman is her glory and acts as a covering (which im not sure how that works with v6 which seems to contradict that). the man is referenced in v7 as to not cover his head at all (which assumes they all had short hair when this was written because v14 tells us nature itself teaches long hair is a disgrace for a man so they probably wouldnt have had long hair).
Many translations have done a poor job of communicating this. Paul used a different Greek word to distinguish between the natural covering of the hair and a fabric covering.
@@johnredacted5141 Yeah that makes sense to me.
The scriptures required the priests of the Old Covenant
to wear certain garments. The turban was one of them.
All this can only make sense if the hair itself is the covering.
Every time I listen to advise on the relationship between man and woman in the context of marriage, a slight relief comes to me that the Lord crafted my life so that today I would be an “old made” because honestly I can’t fathom living and behaving correctly throughout all those trails and tribulations. The Corinthian passage puzzled me. I know Pastor Wilson’s daughter addresses it in the book (and documentary) “Eva in Exile,” but I still couldn’t understand it. It all looks like God knew I wasn’t going to be good at it, so shaped my way away from it. *But* videos like this make me want that blessing disguised as a hard challenge. I appreciate those words: “she’s is the glory of the glory, *a living superlative.* ” Yes, my mind goes immediately to: who can truly live up to those standards? The answer: the one that God calls to do so. I can see my mom being a living superlative. I can see her version of Prov 31. It makes you want that. The blessing and the curse. May God open the ears to heard to all the women that didn’t receive the calling well. I know I don’t know what it’s like, but I’ve lived close to a wonderful woman who does.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
Beautiful
What a glorious calling it is for a woman. I can't imagine not taking that calling with a reasonable, and righteous pride, and striving for it. However, I suppose I'm talking out of turn, considering I can't say in full truth that I am striving towards the calling of a man, because I don't know exactly what it is. I suppose this would be a good time to figure it out, as I have been trying to keep myself above reproach while at the gym, by not to staring, or gawking, or having any unrighteous thought about or at the women there. I suppose I should get back to church, and into men's group.
In summary, of the calling is laid out so clearly, and straightforward, how can one not feel immense joy, and triumph in pursuing it? What a glorious thing to be called Godly.
The apostle Paul did not teach that a woman should cover her head he was teaching the opposite he was stating a problem in the church where the Jewish people were trying to implement head coverings which is there law
And he said we have no such customs in our churches in verse 16
God did not create eve with a head covering he gave her hair and that is what the apostle Paul says a woman’s covering is the hair that God gave her
What's up with the lack of low end on the mic? 2nd video I'm hearing like this.
I can't tell what place I'm in.
Dear friend Doug! I have a question. If the woman's hair is covering then what is a man supposed to uncover?
Maybe it is the difference from a man's short hair and a woman's long hair?
I do understand that that is the modern view typically, that a woman should have long hair and a man have short hair. But why have men traditionally uncovered their head referring to a hat, when praying? It seems to imply an actual physical covering besides the hair. I seriously am trying to figure this whole passage out because I have been raised in a conservative mennonite setting where they believe in a physical covering of the hair for women And a physical non covering for the men , referring to a veil
This teaching of headship is something very sensitive for me because I have 4 children now that I want to teach biblically and I'm not sure what is correct! Among conservative menonites it is not even a question, it's just believed to be a fact! No conversation needed.
@@waynelandis3440 I respect your desire to learn what God wants. In the meantime, it wouldn't hurt to have your girls wear a head covering once a week to church.
@@waynelandis3440
Wayne
I have my thoughts, as well as an essay by 'FA'.
Reply if you have interest. The hair is the 'covering'.
Wow, you guys are a bunch of dorks with all this first, second, third and so on. ...also, 6th!
No way! I’m here first?!
It’s amazing the lengths some people will go to in order to feel offended.
Or to being offended that other people are offended.
I hope all those instagram commenters come watch this. Maybe some were just genuinely confused, but I hope they realise that Doug isn't talking about some specific beauty standard.
Unfortunately, I saw the new post promoting this vid, and they are as mad as ever. Part of the problem may be that many don't realize that the IG post (as most of Canon's posts) is just excerpts from a more full teaching elsewhere.
@@kaylar3197 But isn't that a big part of the problem. The "excerpts" are deliberately provocative in order to get the pot boiling. Then the podcaster can sit back and say, "See, they took it all wrong --- look at all those people mad at Biblical teaching."
@@recalltolife3478 It is a point worth considering. I suppose to a point if you want to lead with the spicy bits, then you should expect knee jerk reactions. But that doesn't make those reactions wise or godly. Per Proverbs 18:2 &13, those who see something provocative and are immediately and blindly provoked, are showing what spirit they are of.
That "Ibid" joke was worth a like all by itself! lol
Paul says in verse 16 even after he explains why a man and woman do not need to cover their head with a material item
That’s why Paul uses the term doesn’t nature teach you
Then Paul says men don’t need to cover their head because you’re made in the image of God - You are good enough
Then Paul says women are made in the glory of man which means you’re also good enough
And he clearly states a woman’s hair is her covering just like God created Eve with long hair Eve did not have a head covering on her head
And Paul also teaches that if a woman does not want to have long enough hair to look like a woman and if she wants to look like a man with her hairstyle then she might as well shave her head or cover it
Much more simple could this be for all of you that don’t understand it
Blog & MaBlog...Hint and Hack:
...in the settings ...custom slow down the Playback Speed to .9 ⇿ .95...Doug sounds a bit duller...but I can understand him a bit better...
Is the covering of the head directed only to MARRIED women? That is my question regarding this issue. I'm single and cover my head, but wouldn't do it if not required...
Great video!
I'm loving this channel!! God bless!!
(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.
Thanks brother Doug.
This is the moderate position on this one. Liberals will shaved the woman's head, the conservatives will have the women wear a headscarf.
Church history (including American Presbys until 1900) took the conservative view, interpreting the covering as a separate clothing item (Paul is imparting the Jewish culture of the OT as well as giving it theological grounding).
I'm glad to see the doctrine returning, but, like you've said before, history is messy.
God bless.
you wrote:
(Paul is imparting the Jewish culture of the OT as well as giving it theological grounding)
There was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a
fabric covering.
The priests, according to scripture, were required to wear turbans
as part of their priestly garments.
The 'covering' is the hair itself. I post a lot on this subject with scriptures.
This is the only way it can make sense, that is, the hair is the covering.
A women must be covered...with her long hair.
Of course there was no law, that’s why I wrote that Paul is imparting OT custom, not law. Paul is issuing a new, positive command for the New Covenant people. Funny fact, this command is what drove the Jewish men to adopt the Yamaka as they wanted to distinguish themselves from the. Christian men who were forbidden from praying covered.
It's funny that Pastor Doug put this video out. I saw the original post on FB (well my wife sent me a screen capture) and I commented to a friend that is a big Wilson fan that I thought it wasn't the best quote to pick from the book if they wanted to reach a broader audience. He proceeded to staunchly defend the comment (which I was not attacking, just how it was used out of context for an ad). We ended up just calling it quits on trying to understand each other and move on. Note: I'm neither defending or attacking the premise of the comment. I think that is left to how a person comes at the passage in Corithians. Does "covered" mean literally covered with hair or a hat, or is it more of a symbol of willful submission to her husband? Is the passage really about physical attributes or our heart regarding obedience to God's ordained order?
you wrote:
Does "covered" mean literally covered with hair or a hat...
Hair. If you want I have my thoughts on this which look at
much in the Old and New Testament. An essay by FA can be
pasted in that looks only at Corinthians.
Excerpt of essay here. (Remember fabric coverings were not
a part of the Law. If they were worn, it was not about any
scripture in the Old Testament.)
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?
-excerpt of essay by FA on head coverings
I would recommend reading an article on this subject published in the spring 2015 issue of the Westminster Theological Journal titled "First Corinthians 11:2-16, Calvin and Reformed Praxis. "
Did not Calvin authorize the slow burn of Michael Servitus at the stake because Calvin didn't like something Servitus believed & taught ?!?
@@jerryshunk7152 Therefore, nothing he said is worth reading.
@@kaylar3197 Calvin did everything he could to
get him executed, and succeeded.
I had a conversation recently with a friend on this top, she was mad at me.
I post on this a lot. The 'covering' is the hair itself.
Not sure what was said regarding your friend. Anyway,
reply if you want more scriptures in the Old and New
Testament on this matter.
@@user-iz8np3vv4i please do share them that would be helpful. And yes I have the same understanding about the hair.
@@McduffShumba
My thoughts next. An essay by FA a little
later on.
@@McduffShumba
Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
-NASB version
If the above scripture means a turban, for example, why would God require the priests to
wear turbans? Paul certainly would have known about this and maybe seen it.
You shall speak to all the skillful people whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may serve as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of checkered work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to Me.
-excerpt Exodus 28
Jesus prayed with something on His head while on the cross. A crown of thorns.
And they dressed Him in purple, and after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; and they began saluting Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!”
-excerpt Mark 15
And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” And having said this, He died.
-excerpt Luke 23
*******************************************
At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we?
“Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much.
-excerpt Luke 7
Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone...
-excerpt John 12
*************
It can only mean the hair is the covering, as the NASB states here:
Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering.
************
No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering.
Therefore no Old Testament reference available.
1 Corinthians 11 starts with this:
...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you...
Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered...
So, there was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. There was no time to establish a tradition of a fabric covering. There was no way to "hold firmly to the traditions" because you can't start a 'tradition' in a period of time that is just a few years.
************
If the covering was a physical covering, then hair length is
irrelevant. No one would know if the woman had long hair
or no hair.
************
Also, if a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before
she can communicate with God, that would make the fabric covering
an idol. But one could also say it was a talisman I suppose, since a
talisman could be an article of clothing.
************
There is also an essay by 'FA'. It's about a 5 minute read.
The full essay is available if requested. Once again one must
keep in mind when reading the essay, that women were not
using a fabric covering as a requirement of the Law. So it was
not part of the culture then.
That is confirmed by the events of Jesus with the 2 women above
and also the scriptures that discourage women from braiding their hair.
If women were commonly wearing a head covering in public
no one would have known about this braiding.
Their head and hair would have been covered by the fabric.
...likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,...
-excerpt 1 Timothy 2 ESV
Do not let your adorning be external-the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear- but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart...
-excerpt 1 Peter 3 ESV
Excerpt here of post by FA:
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?
@@McduffShumba
* 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)
The stereo balance is off. Doug is much more loud in my left ear.
I often find a strong correlation between short hair on women / long hair on men and rebellion to God.
On the other hand, I know plenty of reformed, God fearing women with shorter hair, and God fearing men with longer hair.
The buck stops at what God's Word and what it clearly states.
@@filmfaithandlevity which examples?
Note to self: add "covering" to my list of biblical words to define biblically
So much to learn when we study all the different coverings in the Bible. The etymology too is fascinating. But coverings from genesis, the pass over, the tabernacle and more..... covered in the blood of Jesus
@@LampWaters Thank you 😊 You added yet another level to study. I didn't know there were different kinds. Ah! The Bible truly is endless! 😍
The 'covering' regarding women, is their long hair. The NASB translation
states it flat out:
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.
You may want to check your audio. There was definitely something wroing with it.
If, as they say, behind every good man is a good woman, is the opposite true as well?
One flesh and all that
Not if God calls you to singleness.
In front of every good woman is a good man
@@cosmictreason2242 Cite?
@@vanessaloy1049 what is the opposite of behind?
Second!!!!
I hadn't heard of this so-called "uproar." And I keep my ear to the ground. Don't think it was as far-reaching as everyone supposes. Tempest in a teapot.
Wow this comment section doesn't seem to get it. :/
The only reason this is a hard teaching to so many is because the disorder and poison of feminism has so deeply permeated western society. If you look at virtually any non-western society today, even they typically understand the natural order of things and that the woman is a jewel compared to the man, and that she ought to make some effort to fulfill that role. That's God's common grace and writing the basic law on our hearts. Sadly, western society is in a unique state of rebellion against God, wherein we want to twist every single aspect of God's natural order. It's one thing for historically pagan societies to rebel against God. What we are doing in the west is much worse though, because we have been given so much historically. And to whom much is given, much is required. We are under severe judgment by God.
@@doctorg.k.spoderminsr.2588 I was thinking more in terms of the comments only focusing on head coverings. One could probably make a case that it is another facet of the Lord's judgment. 😔
@@rosefortheKing they’re directly connected. Women are rebellious because their husbands are not leading well, and thus they are not covering
@@cosmictreason2242 Do you mean women or wives? I'm not even sure I should be replying 'cause your comment contains half truths.
Isaiah 3:16-26
Moreover Yahweh said, “Because the daughters of Zion are arrogant,
and walk with outstretched necks and flirting eyes,
walking to trip as they go,
jingling ornaments on their feet;
17
therefore the Lord brings sores on the crown of the head of the women of Zion,
and Yahweh will make their scalps bald.”
18 In that day the Lord will take away the beauty of their anklets, the headbands, the crescent necklaces, 19 the earrings, the bracelets, the veils, 20 the headdresses, the ankle chains, the sashes, the perfume containers, the charms, 21 the signet rings, the nose rings, 22 the fine robes, the capes, the cloaks, the purses, 23 the hand mirrors, the fine linen garments, the tiaras, and the shawls.
24
It shall happen that instead of sweet spices, there shall be rottenness;
instead of a belt, a rope;
instead of well set hair, baldness;
instead of a robe, a wearing of sackcloth;
and branding instead of beauty.
25
Your men shall fall by the sword,
and your mighty in the war.
26
Her gates shall lament and mourn.
She shall be desolate and sit on the ground.
Very well spoken, I'd still argue the necessity of the physical head covering. All the verses prior in this passage speak of a physical covering accompanying or adorning a woman's (long; glorifying) hair. Both are spoken of distinctive and complimentary to one another, so the verse saying "...For her hair is given to her for a covering" would be contradictory to that. I would argue this verse is more likely explaining that her long hair is given to her for the purpose of being covered, as is glorifying unto God. Just my thoughts :) I massively appreciate his faithful commitment to the biblical created order!
...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)
... her hair is given to her as a covering.
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'.
My thoughts: post length 7 minutes, scriptures outside of Corinthians mostly
Essay by another: post length 10 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians
Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary.
@@user-iz8np3vv4i ok... Still doesn't change the fact Paul commands a physical head covering separate from her hair being long. Verse 6 says (NKJV) "For if a woman is not covered (without a hair covering, or as you may interpret it: without long hair?), let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered." If it not being covered refers to it being cut short, how could it be cut short? (shorn) Easy: It can't be, unless you think it's just being cut shorter, but I hope that's not the case. That would be a little bit of a silly interpretation. So, If her hair serves in some fashion as a covering, it's clearly not one sufficient to fulfill that which Paul is commanding.
By your other posts it seems as if you are egalitarian, or at least very expressly anti-complementarian. Luckily for you, I'm not a complimentarian, I believe in biblical patriarchy 💪 are men and women spiritually equal, as in of the same value? Sure are 👍 However they are mightily spiritually different, and God, who is sovereign and does what he pleases, made men for spiritual leadership and vested to them spiritual authority. Not women. See 1st Timothy 2, 1 Peter 3, 1st Corinthians 14 so on and on. The first verse of this passage themselves display discrepancies within spiritual authority does not directly or necessarily relate to discrepancies in spiritual value. Christ is under the spiritual authority of God, is he spiritually less valuable than God? Likewise, I surely hope you don't believe that.
@@sawyeranderson1394
you wrote:
who is sovereign and does what he pleases, made men for spiritual leadership and vested to them spiritual authority. Not women.
Incorrect. I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah.
A Judge had the ultimate in spiritual authority. He/she
could execute a man for his sin. Premeditated murder is
one example. A Judge could teach from scripture as he/she
gave a verdict. If a man refused to accept the verdict of the
Judge on any matter, the penalty was execution.
She was a pastor, according to the scriptures.
This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles.
A Judge was the most important spiritual leader of that time period according to scripture. When a Judge died the people went back to their sinful ways. To say a woman can be a Judge over Israel, but a woman can't be an elder in a small church, just doesn't make any sense scripturally.
All this and more is in the essay. Read time: 15 minutes
@@user-iz8np3vv4i you failed to respond to the content of my argument, however I'd like to ask: so, the (secondary unrelated) passage about debs is true but, you know, all those passages that explicitly (primary, related) prohibit women from executing pastoral responsibilities or holding spiritual authority over a man are a misprint? Yes, no, maybe so?
But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
1 Timothy 2:12
The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Your adornment must not be merely external-braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.
1 Peter 3:3-4
How is she going to teach if she's obeying scripture? If you don't agree with what God has graciously designed and called women too, what he finds precious, why would you serve him? As far as you know he's a sexist. Are you going to spend eternity with a sexist god? 🧐
@@sawyeranderson1394
you wrote:
But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
1 Timothy 2:12
God made Deborah a Judge over Israel.
you wrote:
to subject themselves, just as the Law also says.
There was no Law. If there was, it has passed away.
you wrote:
If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home
Legalism. What if their husband was a pagan?
Any doctrine that is in opposition to what God actually
did must be a false doctrine.
For about 1000 years before
Paul, people were taught that there was no gender qualification
to be a Judge over Israel. This is correct. God made a woman
a Judge because He wanted to, and because men and women
are perfectly equal spiritually.
____________________________________________
Complementarianism
That false and confusing teaching, that states Christian women are less than
Christian men in a spiritual way, but they really aren't, but they really are.
The complementarian teaching prohibits a Christian woman from holding
certain positions in a church. They can't be elders neither can
they teach men. So why is that?
The false teaching makes it clear that the priesthood of the New Covenant
is tiered. There is a hierarchy. Those that are higher, the men, can be in
leadership positions, like elder. They can teach other men. Those in the
lower tier can not be in leadership positions, like elder. They are prohibited
from teaching men, because the men are in the higher tier. It wouldn't make
any sense.
A new believer is automatically assigned their level, higher or lower,
at the moment of salvation, as a birthright. Their gender determines
their tier. A Christian can not move to a higher or lower tier.
A Christian that is in the lower tier (woman) is not allowed to
complain of the tier she was placed in. That would be sin, because
God made her a woman by His choice. She should accept and also
embrace her position in the lower tier.
A church, is either a group of Christian men or a group of Christian men and women.
A church can never be a group of Christian women, because it would be
a group of only those in the lower tier. It would have no elders.
But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
-excerpt 1 Peter 2
Since the teaching states that women are spiritually inferior to men, but
they aren't, but they are, when did that start?
But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a wrongdoer.
-excerpt 1 Timothy 2
It started with the first woman. She was deceived, and sinned because of it. So we
have a teaching that accepts that men and women are fallen beings. Both genders
are sinful by nature. However women are different. They are lacking the ability
that men have to judge if some situation, some concept or teaching is sinful. This
inability was passed down from Eve to all women. It remains to this day. A woman
in our time was 'lacking' from birth, even from the womb.
So what can be done? Nothing according to Complementarianism. That is because
an anointing of that powerful masculine being called the Holy Spirit, is just not
sufficient. Even the Holy Spirit can not elevate even one Christian woman to the
spiritually superior level of a Christian man.
“If her husband treats her right, she should want to look like her husband treats her right.”
👏🏻👏🏻 Why shouldn’t we want to look put together, instead of “a hot mess”? The hot mess express mom trope needs to be thrown into a dumpster and lit on fire.
I agree, but if you did that, you would still have a hot mess on your hands... hehe.
😂 very true!
As should you.
@@RoxyStopIt Hey, Roxy, my name is confusing I can understand that. I'm the wife, my name is Ryan...and I do enjoy looking put together and appropriately dressed every day with my headcover on in corporate worship. :)
@@thehomesmith definitely thought you were the guy, and I definitely wanted to tell you to shut it. I don’t think you should be doing anything of the sort. But I also don’t believe in a man made book from a bunch of men who never met this supposed “saviour”. Also, all the translations and omissions are kind of the tip off as to why women are being subjected to this kind of rhetoric. Sorry for you. And the position you’re put in. I spent a bunch of time reading the comments on DWs posts and it seems like a lot of men are getting off on his outrageous ideologies. The use of a woman? Please.
There is no Biblical law on this but it seems to me that the severe condemnation of jewelry and makeup in the old testament prophets is at least worth considering.
A main branch/circle concept: God creates man from dirt, God creates woman from man, God creates God through woman.
Begotten, not created
Heretical, abandon such mysticism
Jesus was not begotten of the Father through Mary's womb? Which book do you read?
Also, this is why I rarely try to have conversations on the internet anymore. Six people doing a grammar check and one person calling me a heretic with no effort to ask clarification or to expound on the point or even ask my point.
You have a being that can breathe and speak all creation into existence, all time and space, created man from dirt and woman from that man. This being decided, purposely, to be born of a woman, including fulfilling many other things. There must be a purpose to this action. In so doing did create a mystery in what he chose to do. Just a surface level observation but one that stimulates curiosity.
@@MrJperk82 God is not created
Probably a good starting point, if the goal is to illustrate a juxtaposition between the creation standard (here are the distinctions) and the "one-ist" destruction of that standard manifested in modern pagan androgyny. This is likely where we can see the connection between feminism and pagan androgyny, then be able to follow the connections between those two points. In any case, well done, Sir.
If the hair is the covering, it has to cover the WHOLE HEAD, like an actual veil ;) (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)
The word for cover refers to cloth that hangs like hair
@@LampWaters Depends, when referring to the hair it refers to something like a shaal, but every other time it refers to "something down on one's head" and "head" is the whole skull, not just the top part--- that's why lots of literal translations say "veil". Tertullian even wrote a letter called "on the veiling of virgins"
What did Jesus say about coverings for women?
@@Listen-To-Jesus Paul said women's heads should be covered when praying or prophesying, 1 Cor 11:2-16
God's order and relevance buoyed and underscored in the scripture lest we deviate (we have been known to)
Mike Winger's short video on head coverings:
ruclips.net/video/keXayp7JXf4/видео.html
Apostle Peter And the apostle Jude both write about these angels and what they did to women.
God punish the angels Peter said they are in chains in the deepest part of hell until judgment day
God didn’t punish his daughters for being so Beautiful he made them that way
Look at the verse obviously he’s talking about hair as the covering
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.” It definitely had to be referring to cloth. Surely a man didn’t have to remove his hair.
Question: can u shave a cloth?
No
so being in covered by something (hair)is something you can shave (hair)
The covering is hair There is no mention of a cloth and there is no word veil in this text
the word veil that made it into some of the documents was written in alongside (in substitute) of Paul’s Word power by a heretic called Valentus he was thrown out of the church in 1st century
Women you’re capable to dress yourself and you’re capable enough to fix your hair and a beautiful manner that your father approves because he created your beautiful hair and gave it to you it’s OK to wear it don’t listen to a man that wants you to cover up because they think he will cause them to sin
Remember what Jesus said if a man looks at a woman and lusts…. he is guilty not the woman
First Corinthians 11 says women are made in the glory if Adam not in his image
Bald guys rule!
If head coverings are for today, how can you maintain spiritual gifts have expired?
That's definitely not what he's saying
Those things are not scripturally connected so…
The 'covering' is the hair. The Holy Spirit
still moves through people.
Journal of Biblical Literature, Spring 2004, Troy Martin, Paul's Argument from Nature for the Veil in 1 Corinthians 11:13-15: if you can get it, read it.
I'd rather read "Jesus' argument for the veil" if there is one...do you know Jesus said anything about this topic?
@@Listen-To-Jesus I don't believe Jesus addresses the veil at all.
Last.
I am not subscribed but this clip came on while I was scrolling. All I can say is, it is out of ignorance that women take offense to what you are explaining according to God's Word.
All sincere, god-fearing women know that what you say is the truth and that, a woman's head should be covered in worship. Unfortunately, most churches don't teach the principle (as many other God given principles), so it is not done any longer. So now if a woman, with a head covering, walks into such a gathering, where all the women's heads are uncovered, she is looked at askance and called "legalistic". So no one in mainstream churches practices head covering.
On whose account will this fall when we appear before Him for "everything done in the body"? The women or the men in leadership? Just asking....
you wrote:
All sincere, god-fearing women know that what you say is the truth and that, a woman's head should be covered in worship.
The hair itself is the 'covering'. I have my thoughts on this.
I post a great deal on this subject using scripture. Some Old
Testament and some New verses.
Oh Beautiful daughters of God! So beautiful that your beauty (not you) caused angels to sin (Genesis 6) and God punished those angels he did not punish the women…..God made you beautiful
Paul is not telling women to cover their head in first Corinthians chapter 11
Learn the difference between image in the word glory
Third?
The reason Corinthians chapter 11 does not say that women are made in the image of Adam is because women are made in the image of God
Third:)
Fourth
You're starting to sound like a Catholic! I love it!
Sixteenth 😅
Oh boy... here we go again lolol
young men keep trying to explain this and you just can’t get it right
I have spent the last 10 minutes trying to combobulate my thoughts. The end result is this:
...it is hair...just hair...how can any theology rest on something so fantastically insignificant?
Search right response ministries
@@cosmictreason2242 Interesting. Their mission statement gave me a smile.
Get The Holy Spirit so that you can understand scriptures
Before Fall…….See Genesis 1:28. God gave them joint dominion ( authority to rule the world) A matter of fact they share the same name of Adam Eve was not named Eve until after the fall. See Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. That’s why they were 1 flesh and had 1 head and that’s why Jesus taught that and Paul taught that.
After the fall: There was an invisible Veil placed over Eves head…….It took her authority away that God gave her and put it under her husbands Yet….it would be her choice now whether or not she would listen to with her husband (This is how it reads in Hebrew)
God also PLACED a VEIL (for man) inside the the Tabernacle then Temples that were built to separate himself from mankind
When Jesus came the veil was ripped in 2 Opening the way back to God….thru Jesus
There is no more VEIL And Paul is teaching the Jews in the church who are arguing over headcovering………by saying it goes back to the way of creation nature when God created Adam and Eve
Maybe the Holy Spirit can explain it to you this way
This means to be covered by His Word.
When you are His pupil,Our Father puts a hedgerow around you and marks you approved (Timothy)
False indoctrinated people will be subject to the torment from fallen angels.
A woman's long hair is her 'covering'.
507th
Red leader, standing by.
@@douglasmcnay644 Gold Leader, standing by
It’s OK to be beautiful and it’s OK if men see you’re being beautiful it’s how you act and what you do with that beauty that matters to God
I.e. I believe dressing showing parts of your body is wrong…. I believe excessive make up is wrong to a point… I believe wearing short short skirts…. Or types of clothing that are tight on your body is wrong….. not because a man sees me but MY FATHER in heaven sees me
Why would I want a dress like that in front of my father
48th
Thirteenth
How is this offensive?!😆
Your microphone using the cocaine nose filter?
I love Doug and his wit, but I found this one a little unclear.
The shekinah glory? You mean the female divinity of Kaballah??
I am never sure how to take this from Pastor Wilson. Sometimes he says things about women as if all women should focus on looking beautiful for their husbands which I find off putting since I am not and never have been a fashionista. On the other hand, he appears to have loving and respectfull relationships with his wife and daughter. So I scratch my head and wonder if I simply do not understand what he means by respect and showing off that one is well cared for and loved. Behaviorally it makes sense: don't bad mouth your husband to others and praise him when appropriate publically. As to external appearance, isn't the inside of the cup more important?
I hear the way that might create the pressure to be something you're not, like a modern fashion plate, or whatever. But I think certainly in Christian Liberty it would be "the best you can be." Emphasis on "you." My wife is plain and prefers a distinctly northeast preppy look. It's not my favorite, but by God she's going to have a nice-looking pea coat, loafers, and white blouses if I have anything to say about it. It's important to avoid falling into the gnostic madonna teacup: "We are only spirits in the material world." What is on the outside also matters because it's a manifestation of what's inside.
Remember how Christ taught the Pharisees
"It is good that you parcel out the smallest things, just don't miss the greater things in doing that"
I think Christ is talking about priority. Don't spend all your time and effort polishing the outside, but don't neglect to polish it either.
Who commands more honor and respect, the overweight man with a heart of gold, or the obviously strong man with a heart of gold?
When the cup claims it's clean on the inside, but prefers to stay dirty on the outside, we need to wonder about the inside again... 😊
I know it's hard to hear, but: we need to ask ourselves why it's off-putting to be told to strive for beauty.
@@amandamckinney928 I agree with this, from a male perspective
Most men, in their right minds, know a girl is trouble within seconds of seeing her, simply by how she dresses and presents herself.
Why isn't the reverse taught as true?
@@scottyyoch3537 Both, equally.
Sound not to good on this one.
Apologies. We have an audio recording issue the last couple of weeks and it'll be fixed moving forward.
I think you've been sandbaged at the intersection of feminine solopsistic "reasoning" and feminine group preference. Womenkind tend to reason solopsistically, whereby they take a valid generality and convert it into a personal insult. Femine group preference can drive women to gang up on a man even if he is right.. Solopsistic reasoning and in-group preference are not sinful, but most women act on them sinfully. Add to that the fact that all women are about "the feels" and not about "the reals" (and that IS universally true about all women at one level or another). These are the three dynamics of femininity that have conspired against you. No amount of adroit reasoning will satisfy them. Brother, you have been sandbaged by these three characteristics of femininity. This is why I rarely discuss serious topics with most women. But you, being an author on these kinds of topics, don't have this luxury. Defending yourself in the face of emotional feminine solopsisism may be a lost cause. My sincerest sympathies, FWIW..
Please tell us more about women. I don't think you have quite exhausted the topic.
Man says: if a woman doesn’t cover her beautiful hair God gave her……So that WE men and angels aren’t tempted by women……… when we look at woman……… because it’s her fault if we get tempted
we’re gonna shave off her beautiful hair that God gave her
This is not what God or Jesus or Paul says.
1. God and Jesus say: Mathew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Who does Jesus blame: That’s right the man not the woman
Paul says the beautiful hair that God gave her is her glory and a covering
Paul instructs churches on dress of women And how to wear their hair
(not like the pagans) braided with gold.
Women wouldn’t be getting instructions on how to wear your hair if you were supposed to cover it up.
Genesis clearly says that woman is made in the image of God
And the angels Paul refers to It’s not angels in the church it’s the fallen angels from Genesis 6 who saw how beautiful the women were and took as many of them and raped them many died. That was a big reason why God flooded the world Genesis 6 it upset him Enough to mention it in the Bible
God loves his daughters