5:10 i’m not sure there’s any way, you can see the hair is the covering, if you just continue reading the passage, it says that it is disgraceful for a woman to shave her head, and so if she does not cover while worshiping and praying, it is just the same as if she were to shave her head… It doesn’t make much sense to say that your hair is your covering, but if you don’t cover, you might as well, shave your head because it’s just as bad… No mind you I don’t really have a bias here I personally do not headcover at this point in my life I am studying the topic myself as a woman, but I just cannot get behind the idea that your hair is your covering just by reading the passage in its full context it would make no sense to say your hair is your covering, but if you don’t cover, you might as well shave your head it makes no sense
Agreed. This passage literally does not state that a woman’s hair IS the covering… it uses an appeal to nature to illustrate that even a woman’s long hair demonstrates a need for her to be covered. If one cannot interpret such a simple passage correctly, it makes me instantly question their lack of proper understanding in other passages as well.
@@susandesantell1379 my thoughts as well! I like Owen. I found him to be sound overall… but this one just makes NO sense. I pray Owen actually see’s this and does a deeper study.
Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 ESV What in the world are you talking about??!! It says it right there!!
@@akadwriter read the whole passage for context “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.” 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 ESV “For it’s the same as of it were shaven” Paul is using a woman’s long hair as a SMILIE… to pray or prophesy uncovered is the same as it just like .. or just as bad .. as a woman who were to shave her head. Both equally disgraceful in this passage… It makes no sense to say- hey you must cover your head because if you don’t it’s just as disgraceful as I’d you shaved your head- BUT no worries your hair is your covering so you don’t have to cover actually… it doesn’t logically play out..
While spending lots of time reading through the Bible in a year, this passage was highlighted to me by God directly. The older woman I did Bible study with God also spoke to her about it in her reading. I did NOT want to wear a covering or look different, yet each time I looked this passage up in different version of scripture I had mixed understanding but still kept looking in other versions of the Bible so I could ease my conscience and say it was translated wrong. WELL, I decided to pray and ask God to show me CLEARLY what He’s saying so to remain obedient, because He says if you Love me you’ll obey. I still did NOT want to wear a covering and stand out but told God if He makes it’s clear I’ll obey. That night He CLEARLY showed me in a vivid dream that I STILL remember!! He IS saying for women to cover our heads because of the “angels” there’s a spiritual reason for this!! When the woman and I got together for our monthly Bible study, we both said I have to share with you what God has shown me. We NEVER talked before our study and God highlighted the SAME THING to both of us AND we both had never heard ANYTHING taught on this subject! God has spiritual principles that we’re not all savvy in, yet I don’t lean on my own understanding, I just obey. To go a step further to confirm, He brought a teaching to me that Derek Prince did, they were walking down a road in another country and the men were looking and making inappropriate comments to his wife Ruth and he or she (don’t recall) said to cover her head and as soon as she did, not a word from anyone afterwards!! She too was shown by God and didn’t minister or teach without it- she just obeyed! 👍🏻
“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
I consider myself patriarchal and think Owen’s beliefs are very closely aligned to it. I think Dale’s podcasts on women teachers were taken to say what he did not say. Owen’s view of women teachers is Dale’s view. Great interview guys!
Thank you for this episode. I’m only 8:35 in and have not listened all the way through yet, but I have a sincere question. If one holds that the hair is what Paul is meaning by covering, why do men not shave their heads to pray and prophesy? The Scripture is very clear that men are to be uncovered and women are to be covered while praying or prophesying. So if one holds to the hair as the covering, then the logical next question would be, what qualifies as long? Might the last 70-80 years of the Church ignoring these biblically distinct principles between males and females have anything to do with the reality we are witnessing in the unbelieving pagan culture in America? Is it possible that we, as God’s people, have been unfaithful in this area? One more detail that is important. What immediately follows in 1 Corinthians 11? It doesn’t appear that Paul transitioned from something “minor” directly into the weighty matter of the Lord’s Supper. These are questions asked out of pure respect with a converted female heart that truly is convicted that we are in error as believers in minimizing this issue. God chose to make us gendered beings and uses our distinctions to image Him. Just as marriage serves as a living picture that we are responsible and privileged to participate in, it is possible covering and uncovering is another living image He uses as a visual reminder. To be transparent, i have been covering for only a few months after studying this passage extensively for months. And covering has been a beautiful and constant reminder (that i didn’t realize i needed so badly) that i am a woman under authority! It has helped me tremendously in the shutting down (killing) of my sinful, feminist thinking flesh when it rears its ugly head! It also served as the means that revealed how much i actually mis-used my hair, yes, even my hair seemed to be somewhat of an idol. It apparently meant more to me than it ought to have in my appearance. Shocking i know, but true. Practicing this principle has also served as an added bonus in the respect i have for and show my husband! Amazing what visual reminders are capable of! And one last thing i stumbled on recently is Numbers 6. Verse 7 specifically says…his separation to God is on his head. It seems that maybe the head is important in ways we haven’t realized. My apologies for the long comment. i truly desire it only serves to glorify God! i have experienced much unexpected joy since covering and honestly never saw it coming! It shouldn’t have surprised me though, every time He grants me repentance in an area of life that has always been the result! More joy in Him!
That’s the wonderful truth of the salvation message we are offered today, the free gift of Ephesians 2:8&9 KJV - it gives us the absolute freedom to do whatever we see fit (because all of our mistakes are already forgiven, Eph 1:7 KJV), so if a transvestite accepts the free gift, eternal life is theirs from that moment forward, whether they remain a transvestite or not. Israel’s law program (Acts 20:21 KJV) is over; we are living in the dispensation of the mystery which offers the free gift!
Very thoughtful comment. I began practicing covering several years ago but didn't continue when we joined (in error) a legalistic church. They believed that the hair was the covering. By contrast they also believed women shouldn't wear pants. I thought it odd for sure. So, I wouldn't seem as though I was being disrespectful, I stopped covering. I was so happy to read Mr Partridge book and it opened my eyes.
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes, scriptures outside of Corinthians mostly Essay by another: post length 7 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary.
Wow, I really like your comment, I was part of the nar churches and the Lord opened my eyes to the true scriptures. There were women teachers there in nar. I listened to Keith Malcolmson teaching on head covering, it's a four part series.
“…the thing that is most astonishing here is that he appeals to creation, not to Corinth. 1 Cor. 11:3 If anything transcends local custom it is those things that are rooted and ordered in creation. That’s why I’m very frightened to be loose with this passage.” - R.C. Sproul Our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words in to the Apostle’s mouth, but we are ignoring the words that are there.” As Dr. Sproul frequently noted, Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 11:2-12 grounds head coverings for wives in worship in the order of creation. Man was created first, which puts him in a position of authority over his wife; therefore, his wife should cover her head in corporate worship as a sign of her submission. Whatever role other cultural factors may play, grounding head coverings in the creation order suggests that the practice should be followed in every generation. It is something that reflects the world as it was created and how it should be.
The part about "Masculinity and Christ-like Character" is so good and helpful. For one, it puts into succinct words what many men (and women for that matter) see as the God-given role of men in the family - to be tough and meek at the same time, to be multidimensional and above all to to emulate Christ and be willing to repent again and again if we fail in that task. Also it is very practical to me as a husband and father of two. I only ever heard of Owen Strachan before this interview but never heard or read anything from him. I am impressed by the content, the depth and the irenic style with which he presents himself. Thanks Costi and Owen for this tremendous interview.
This stuff is great. There is a whole segment of the church that has been growing and will continue to grow and that is the single woman however, who has not been able to marry or who is no longer married and find themselves ignored or even seen as less of a woman. The question for the church is how does the church handle this cultural reality? I have only heard extreme answers from both sides it is ignored. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
It's a false teaching. All false teachings will do harm, some how and some way. If you can't pray without a fabric covering, then that fabric covering is a talisman. Talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is believed to have spiritual or magical properties. The object will align with your intention for its use. Every time you look at a talisman, your mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes a necessary ritual.
@@8784-l3b no that’s not the purpose of it, it’s not magical or a talisman .. it’s a symbol of submission to Christ in the midst of the church. And not every woman wears a mantle, they wear hats and berets but with an understanding that it’s submission unto the Lord and that’s not an issue… it’s also someone’s own conviction
@@jocelynarcentales Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. -NASB version If the above scripture means a turban, for example, why would God require the priests to wear turbans? Paul certainly would have known about this and maybe seen it. You shall speak to all the skillful people whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may serve as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of checkered work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to Me. -excerpt Exodus 28 Jesus prayed with something on His head while on the cross. A crown of thorns. And they dressed Him in purple, and after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; and they began saluting Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!” -excerpt Mark 15 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” And having said this, He died. -excerpt Luke 23 ******************************************* At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we? “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much. -excerpt Luke 7 Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone... -excerpt John 12 ************* It can only mean the hair is the covering, as the NASB states here: Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. ********************************************************* In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her; ... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) 1 Corinthians 11 verse 13-15 ************ No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. Therefore no Old Testament reference available. 1 Corinthians 11 starts with this: ...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you... Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered... So, there was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. There was no time to establish a tradition of a fabric covering. There was no way to "hold firmly to the traditions" because you can't start a 'tradition' in a period of time that is just a few years. ************ If the covering was a physical covering, then hair length is irrelevant. No one would know if the woman had long hair or no hair. ************ Also, if a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before she can communicate with God, that would make the fabric covering an idol. But one could also say it was a talisman I suppose, since a talisman could be an article of clothing. Talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is believed to have spiritual or magical properties. The object will align with your intention for its use. Every time you look at a talisman, your mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes a necessary ritual. ************ 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?
7 Reasons for head covering So the very first reason for head coverings is because of the created order. This is the foundation that Paul said “I want you to understand” (1 Cor 11:3,8). This is not a cultural argument, but a transcendent argument as the Fathers headship is eternal and unchanging. Because the ordinance of head covering is for certain times (v4-6), demonstrating a removable covering. (v6) It was to be worn during certain times (prayer and prophecy, or worship). This is not possible with hair. A man (men were instructed not to cover their heads) cannot remove his hair then put it back on when praying is done! “If a woman will not” demonstrates the covering was removable. Because a woman’s hair (length according to the individual) is for her glory. (v15) Part of the purpose of the head covering is to veil this glory, not showcase it. Individual glory is the LAST thing any should want in the Presence of God! Because this creates quite a quandary for women who cannot grow “long hair.” Think of Alopecia. Can they still pray and prophesy in certain settings? Regardless of hair length though, a covering can still be worn. Because of the way verse 6 would read if we substituted “hair” or “long hair:” “If a woman will not [have long hair], let her cut her hair short…” Huh? She would already have done that! The whole point of that verse is to show the shame of her not covering. Because it would be very odd if her symbol of authority in the presence of angels (v10) was one that gave her glory (v15), since the biblical testimony of angelic worship is not glory for angels, but angels showing humility and covering themselves. (Isa 6:1-3) Because the Church agreed with the simplicity and power of this teaching for 1950 years, from the time of Apostles (v16) through the mid-Twentieth Century (1950-60s). We only began to disobey these precepts on a large scale when feminism hit the West like a tidal wave.
I Love Susan Heck she has been a great addition to the teachings from my elder's at my church. I as a woman can not understand why so many want to go against God's word in this(or any) subject!! As far as head covering goes I have always taken it as a womans hair is her covering but I don't belittle or not associate with the women I know whom wear coverings in my church! Awesome discussion gentlemen, Thank you!!
Verses 5 through 7, as well as verse 13, of 1 Corinthians 11 use a form of the Greek word for "veiled", κατακαλύπτω katakalupto; this is contrasted with the Greek word περιβόλαιον peribolaion, which is mentioned in verse 15 of the same chapter, in reference to "something cast around" as with the "hair of a woman … like a mantle cast around". These separate Greek words indicate that there are thus two headcoverings that Paul states are compulsory for Christian women to wear, a cloth veil and her natural hair. Some have taken issue with the fact that the Greek word used for covering in verse 15 (περιβόλαιον - peribolaion) is a different word than the form of the word used for veiling/covering in verses 5-7 and 13 (κατακαλύπτω - katakalupto), the latter of which means "to cover wholly" or "to veil". Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, John W. Keddie, contended that if simply any hair were the covering Paul was talking about, then verse 6 would read "For if the women have no hair on her head, let her also be shorn", rendering the passage to be nonsensical.
Susan Heck teaches Jesus was depressed. These women constantly teach error. They may be well meaning but that’s a fact. Don Currins wife teaches Adam ate the apple so Eve wouldn’t die alone. I don’t condemn them but women teaching theology is against scripture.
@@barryallen119 well said. I fought this ordinance until I realized this. Also rendered nonsense, would be the verse directed to men… take your “hair” off? I bought a few scarves after seeing that 😂
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
It depends on the situation. Masculinity under control, taking charge when needed, being gentle when appropriate, non abusive aggression when protecting.
Matthew 21:12-13 comes to mind every time I click on these guys! Sell your books. Sell your courses. Oh that's right, perhaps we should get to Scripture!
When it comes to head coverings, it's actually new NOT to wear them. If you notice we still culturally don't alkow men to wear hats in church...its from the same Bible verses. It was during the sexual revolution and the growth of feminism that we actually saw a departure from wearing hats to church among women. That wasn't a simple fashion trend, but was rooted in the Biblical doctrine of head-coverings. I also will throw out, the fact that so many people are so emotionally charged about and against wearing a piece of cloth on their head for 1.5 hrs once a week....is a bit nuts to me. Like, why would it matter if it weren't about our inherent desire to disobey and rebel? Just some two cents. Also patriarchy is not a "new" interpretation of Scripture. Its' been how it's been interpreted for most of Christian history. Having men be the leaders at home, in the church, society and in government is not a new concept, and is very clearly rooted in the text of Scripture.
you wrote: Having men be the leaders at home, in the church, society and in government is not a new concept, and is very clearly rooted in the text of Scripture. I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God. A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin. A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting. _________________________________________________________________ ...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. -NASB A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. If a fabric covering is actually required, then all references to hair are totally irrelevant to the subject. It only can make sense if the long hair of a woman is the 'covering'. She should be covered, with her long hair. To have short hair, like a man, means that she is basically bald. Therefore uncovered.
@@8784-l3b Deborah is an example that is often used to try to refute patriarchy. The issue is that those who use it to do that are completely missing the entire message of the whole story in Judges. Israel was in a time of great moral decay. Men had so abdicated their own role, were so cowardly at heart, that God had a woman lead them. it was literally supposed to be a slap in the face to Israel that their men were so limp-wristed that this became necessary. If you read the WHOLE story you also see Jael, a woman (not Deborah), is the hero of the story. Why? Because the captain was too afraid to go to war without a woman at his side. His condemnation was that she would go with him, but the glory would go to a woman. When we look at scripture we have to take all of it together, or else we get strange doctrines. When you look at this story in full, especially in the context of the book of Judges (where all men did what they thought was right in their own eyes) and even further in the context of the Bible (which very clearly teaches patriarchy), Deborah is actually an argument FOR patriarchy. There's a difference between what God will allow in a case of extreme moral decay, and what God's design for society is. Divorce is allowed because of sin, but it is not God's design for society. Ideally Christians are not getting divorced. It is not what Christians should be upholding as a great and wonderful thing. God had Hosea marry a woman of ill repute of the sake of making a point, but are we to take that passage as recommendations for men to seek wives among wayward women? NO! You read each passage in its context and in light of the whole Bible. Deborah was allowed to rule because the moral decay of men was so great. You will note, that when God sets up a king, he goes with a man. Head coverings: You are doing what many do and are again, not reading the whole passage. If you follow the logic of the passage from beginning to end you will find that the hair is yes a “natural” covering, but Paul literally uses that very fact to then argue that it is obvious that women should wear a head covering in church. " Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a] is her husband,[b] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife[c] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven." What causes the confusion for a lot of people is that here Paul is actually using the fact that everyone understands that women have long hair and that it would be a disgrace for her to shave it as an argument for why a woman should wear a head covering during worship because of the angels and to represent her place in the created order. “But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man…..That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” Why would a woman need a symbol of authority on her head if she just needs to have long hair? Most women at that time already had long hair and the passage itself shows that culturally everyone knew it would be disgraceful for a woman to be shaved. Why was this even a topic necessary to bring up then? Because he ISN’T talking about just hair. He is using hair length as well as the created order as examples of things his readers already know are obviously good and necessary to show that head covering is necessary and natural and right for a woman to do in church. Church history bears this out, with women wearing head coverings (hats) all the way up until the 60’s. Even still, men remove their hats to pray and when they enter churches. What is even stranger is churches will claim long hair is the covering, and then be perfectly fine with their female members having pixie cuts and short hair, or men having long hair and man-buns. That is a slight digression from the topic, but it shows what I mean. There is an inherent wish to do away with God’s design, first with head coverings, now with hair length, and the church is doing little to stand in the way of that. I recommend the sermons series by Brian Borgman called Men and Women in Worship. One sermon called Men and Women in Worship: Headcoverings is specifically going through this passage. You can find it on sermon audio I believe. Highly recommend. Again, if we come to the Bible WITHOUT outside influences and just read what the Lord says patriarchy is glaringly clear. If we look at the passage on head coverings without any bias and just read it as it was meant to be read, logically following his point, then it's also obvious.
@@LizzyTwifehomemaker (sorry for the delay, there was no notification to me) you wrote: Deborah was allowed to rule because the moral decay of men was so great. Nothing in scripture says that. you wrote: Men had so abdicated their own role, were so cowardly at heart, that God had a woman lead them. Nothing in scripture says that. Then Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam sang on that day, saying, “For the leaders leading in Israel, For the people volunteering, Bless the Lord! -excerpt Judges 5 My heart goes out to the commanders of Israel, The volunteers among the people; Bless the Lord! -excerpt Judges 5 You're seeing Deborah through the eyes of Paul. Search the scriptures, there was no gender qualification to be a Judge over Israel. The reason Deborah was sent as a Judge is here: ...the Lord was moved to pity... And when the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge and saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who tormented and oppressed them. -excerpt Judges 2 God wanted to show what he could do with women in Judges 4 and 5. God made a woman a Judge over Israel. According to scripture, God ruled Israel through a Judge. God had a woman, not part of a battle, kill the enemy commander. you wrote: You will note, that when God sets up a king, he goes with a man. The time of the Judges ended because God was rejected as King. _________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION: Before God was rejected by Israel for the rulership of men, that is, kings, there were different 'seasons' so to speak. One of those seasons was the time of the Judges. ...but they have rejected Me from being King over them. Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint us a king to judge us like all the nations.” But the matter was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people regarding all that they say to you, because they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being King over them. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day-in that they have abandoned Me and served other gods-so they are doing to you as well. -excerpt 1 Samuel 8 _____________________________________________________________________ Full essay read time: 10 minutes
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
Verses 5 through 7, as well as verse 13, of 1 Corinthians 11 use a form of the Greek word for "veiled", κατακαλύπτω katakalupto; this is contrasted with the Greek word περιβόλαιον peribolaion, which is mentioned in verse 15 of the same chapter, in reference to "something cast around" as with the "hair of a woman … like a mantle cast around". These separate Greek words indicate that there are thus two headcoverings that Paul states are compulsory for Christian women to wear, a cloth veil and her natural hair. Some have taken issue with the fact that the Greek word used for covering in verse 15 (περιβόλαιον - peribolaion) is a different word than the form of the word used for veiling/covering in verses 5-7 and 13 (κατακαλύπτω - katakalupto), the latter of which means "to cover wholly" or "to veil". Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, John W. Keddie, contended that if simply any hair were the covering Paul was talking about, then verse 6 would read "For if the women have no hair on her head, let her also be shorn", rendering the passage to be nonsensical.
Costi i have a question- several years ago our family transitioned to another country where my wife has the main job. Part of the reason is her qualifications but also language- before I was the main financial provider in an English speaking place, but now where we are she is, because of the language and her job. In this situation, do you think I am in sin because she has the main income(I have had some lesser - income jobs in our current situation) - thanks
Thank you for posting this. Your video kept popping up on my feed and I avoided listening to it because I’ve been asking the Lord about the women in ministry question a lot lately. I go to a church where my pastor is very progressive and he encourages me to step into roles typically held by men (I.e. elder and teaching the congregation on Sundays). I’m falling more in the soft complimentarian side because I do see women in ministry in scripture but not in the roles spelled out in Timothy and Titus.
I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles. 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.
QUESTION:.🤷🏻♀️ Coming out of a UPCI church, they teach that long hair means, completely uncut hair once you become saved through following Acts 2:38 to a "t", do you have any teaching to explain this fallacy? 🙏🏻 Thank you for your work.
It’s actually sad to see teachers who claim to be faithful to the Word compromise on this issue, he is not the first. The Corinthians head coverings for women was discussed in the church back in the eighties when we were less liberal and less influenced by the culture. It was difficult back then because of the subservient connotations towards women. But a faithful teaching of these verses is that its Paul teaching on Christian behaviors when gathering to worship God. Our respect for God precludes us from distracting from the worship of God, so in this particular case women are to diminish their external beauty as an honor to The Lord. It has never been about equality or feminism but the culture pushes us and so teachers waffle and compromise, the correct understanding is the these verses still apply when the proper spirit of the teachings is taught! So women are to “cover” and in my opinion apply modesty in their attire, let their beauty be inner especially at church. I see Dr Owen was not willing to state that and instead used a very improbable interpretation of hair length, improbable because hair length was not just biblically discussed for women, but modesty is!
FYI--Mothers often put essential oils on their sons and husbands but some such as lavender and tea tree oils have estrogen-like substances in them and lower testosterone.
1 Cor 11- Owen is off. This chapter is rich in church polity. The way we administer the Lord's Table is also in this book. Women, up until feminism in the enlightenment, wore a head cover. Study art throughout history and you'll see headcovering is a sign of headship, not hair.
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. This was the original teaching. Eventually a fabric covering came along as a false teaching. ...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. And more: But by no manner of means are women to be allotted to uncover and exhibit any part of their person, lest both fall,-the men by being excited to look, they by drawing on themselves the eyes of the men. -Clement of Alexandria - 'The Instructor' about 198 A.D.
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
@@8784-l3b let's stick with hair as a covering, then could you please help me understand 4Every man praying or prophesying, having the head covered, doth dishonour his head, 5and every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, doth dishonour her own head, for it is one and the same thing with her being shaven, 6for if a woman is not covered - then let her be shorn, and if [it is] a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven - let her be covered; 7for a man, indeed, ought not to cover the head, being the image and glory of God, and a woman is the glory of a man, As you said covering is hair, does men shave their heads every time before praying as they are not allowed to wear a covering. I'd say no, unless one has gone bald or chosen to shave it off (like me). It's scripture that has to be taken in full context and not pick and choose. Hence I stick with the covering as a cloth or similar material and not with hair as a covering. I'm not here for a debate or a fight.
@@FinneyJacobp you wrote: please help me understand you wrote: I'm not here for a debate or a fight. Ok, so which is it??? I have my thoughts which take 5 minutes to read. Also a short essay by another, about this matter that looks at Corinthians only. That also takes 5 minutes to read.
@@8784-l3b please share your thoughts. I'm so sorry English isn't my first language and thanks for your patience on this. Could you please explain further? Thanks
@@FinneyJacobp Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. -NASB version If the above scripture means a turban, for example, why would God require the priests to wear turbans? Paul certainly would have known about this and maybe seen it. You shall speak to all the skillful people whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may serve as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of checkered work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to Me. -excerpt Exodus 28 Jesus prayed with something on His head while on the cross. A crown of thorns. And they dressed Him in purple, and after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; and they began saluting Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!” -excerpt Mark 15 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” And having said this, He died. -excerpt Luke 23 ******************************************* At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we? “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much. -excerpt Luke 7 Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone... -excerpt John 12 ************* It can only mean the hair is the covering, as the NASB states here: Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. ********************************************************* In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her; ... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) 1 Corinthians 11 verse 13-15 ************ No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. Therefore no Old Testament reference available. 1 Corinthians 11 starts with this: ...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you... Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered... So, there was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. There was no time to establish a tradition of a fabric covering. There was no way to "hold firmly to the traditions" because you can't start a 'tradition' in a period of time that is just a few years. ************ If the covering was a physical covering, then hair length is irrelevant. No one would know if the woman had long hair or no hair. ************ Also, if a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before she can communicate with God, that would make the fabric covering an idol. But one could also say it was a talisman I suppose, since a talisman could be an article of clothing. Talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is believed to have spiritual or magical properties. The object will align with your intention for its use. Every time you look at a talisman, your mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes a necessary ritual. ************ 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?
This all comes from the pendulum swing of our culture from Michael Foster's book "It is good to be a Man" He wants to be the Andrew Tate of Christianity. The subtitle of that book should be 'It sucks to be a woman'... The Federal Vision teachings of the last 20 or so years have birthed this Radical Patriarchy, not all of it but most of it comes out of Moscow. I was saved out of Mormonism 34 years ago, very very similar, Faith + works Theonomy Baptism unto membership Radical Patriarchy etc etc.
Genuine question: are you guys saying that a woman working outside of the home is not Biblical womanhood? My husband is not ok with me not working and I am the breadwinner. My husband works in ministry/non profit and there’s no way our family could live on his income in this area. So, am I sinning? (This isn’t an argument…it’s a real question.)
I know this is directed at the these men. It's not sinful for a women to work outside the home, what's sinful is if a women neglects her home for a career.
Bible is pretty clear on the home being the woman's work. She can work from.home to supplement income but should not be working outside of it. Is husband in full-time ministry? Time to go part-time perhaps. A woman working outside the home fulltime is neglecting her own home. That being said, a wife is to submit to her husband. But I would question a husband.being okay woth his wife working outside the home fulltime. Doesnt fit with what is commanded in the Bible.
@@jolo7173 I carry the insurance for our family. If I went part time, we’d have no insurance. I work full time and homeschool our children and take care of the home. Not sure what else I can do.
@@jolo7173what about the married couple that cannot have children and are unable to adopt or foster yet? What about those wives? Should they just sit around until able to have children? Keeping a home is a job, but without kids it most definitely is not a full time job if the keeper of home is working diligently everyday. It would take maybe 1-2 days of a week to deep clean a larger home when kids are not involved. The Bible doesn’t say a woman CANT work outside of the home. The Proverbs 31 woman was in the market place and going out to buy fields. She was doing her business about the town for the sake of her home. Her home was not being neglected.
@@jolo7173 Care to back up this spewed nonsense with Scriptures??? Where does the Bible say that if a woman works outside the home she is sinning? Or neglecting her home?? Back it up or shut up and stop burdening believers with extra Biblical commands. Satan already does that!!
Because we need biblical masculinity back. Marriages have failed bc role have been out of order.....feminism. Many of us regenerated ex feminists know what we've done and see men have been emasculated. I feel in a sense they've given up bc women have usurped their roles. We are looking for masculine men who want to take charge and we know we women yearn for it.
leaterry I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles. 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. So, women can teach. etc. The gospel message is a teaching. The first and most important. The Lord gives the command; The women who proclaim good news are a great army -excerpt Psalm 68 A Psalm of David.
It’s not hard to figure out at all because everything written before Israel lost her kingdom in Acts 28:28-31 KJV, and everything written in Paul’s letters only applied to the Jews and Greeks in his churches; and WE as pagan Gentiles would not have been allowed into those churches because we are not ritually clean because we did not and do not observe the ordinances that the Greeks received from the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15! Nothing in Acts applies to us that are saved by accepting the free gift with no strings attached in Ephesians 2:8&9 KJV - the gospel that replaced all other gospels that had been connected with Israel’s (failed) relationship with God that ended abruptly and permanently at Acts 28:28-31 KJV when that world ended (Acts 26:22 KJV) - prophecy; and a new world - mystery, began (Ephesians 3:9 KJV)! It needs to be understood that even though pagans are addressed and mentioned (“the faithful in Christ Jesus,” Ephesians 1:1 KJV), we probably still weren’t allowed inside the synagogues where the Acts believers met, and that, besides those words specifically about and to us pagans in Ephesians and Colossians, the rest of those two epistles are addressed to the Jews and Greeks in those churches who were still very much obeying the Law and the Acts 15 ordinances and weren’t about to give up everything they knew!
Long hair is the covering. It is irrelevant if what some people deemed as the "first" churches used veils or something on their heads. That is going outside the Scriptures to try to prove a doctrine. To make it appear that certain religious groups for a long period of time could not be wrong flies in the face of Scripture. "My people are destroyed due to lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6. And the best "biblical" proof is Acts 7:47-51 when Stephen tells the tale of how WRONG the Jews were to believe that God cared about building a temple. If you know the story David wanted to build God a temple/house. God said no. Solomon (David's son) built one but God never asked to do that. So for MANY years people thought it was ok to built a temple. They were wrong and for a long time. Plus what does the 1960's have to do with women not wearing hats? One needs to be clear on the reason. One can only assume due to the cultural revolutions of the 60's in the US and some parts of Europe that the whole world stopped using hats. Sounds goofy. Plus again this is not a biblical argument. One can also argue that during that time people started reading the bible en masse and came to many logical conclusions and stopped following false doctrines. Disobedience can lead to destruction therefore follow the Bible not someone's interpretation of the Bible. If willing I can provide biblical proof.
If you don't look to the early church as a hint on what St Paul meant with his letter. It is hubris in the extreme to think you have a better understanding of the Greek used than the people of Corinth whose native tongue was the same Greek that Paul used. Same Greek at the same time all the nuances and subtleties of the words Paul wrote were immediately understood by the people of Corinth. Therefore we need to look at how they interpreted Paul's words. Eyewitnesses say that the men were bare headed and the women were veiled.
Back to Genesis 1:26-28 God tells both men and women to fill the earth and subdue. God made no distinction man rules and women follow them, He told them both to rule and subdue. That was from the get go, after the fall we have the curse, but Gods original design stated clearly, says God tells THEM to rule and subdue, both men and women, no, distinction, but equally ruling and subduing. Read for yourself, unclouded by others opinions. Then New Testament, we all follow Jesus. There is no Greek, Jew, male or female, all are one in Christ Jesus. Also Paul gives instruction for women to prophecy in church, if women were to never talk in church Paul would not give instruction for them to do so, so when he instructs them elsewhere to not talk, we need to dig deeper at what is going on. Women in that church were being disruptive, not an instruction for all time, or Paul would of contradicted himself, then scripture would be inaccurate, which God breathed, so is not, dig deeper. Also, during the time of God appointed Judges, God appointed Deborah. There was plenty of men, He could of rose up a fearful “Gideon” but He appointed Deborah. God is not a God of confusion, the prophetess Mariam, leading, God allowed ordained all of this and more. Dig deeper. There is a lot of reading into scripture what isn’t really said on the issue of women..
@marriage4life893 Yes Deborah gave a command from the Lord, and for those who think she wasn’t chosen by God to lead, she boldly says The Lord commands, then she prophecies from the Lord, because Barack didn't do what God instructed him to do, he chose to ask Deborah to go, and only then would he go, Deborah then prophesied from God that the war would be won by a woman. And the proof she is a true prophet of God is, that is what happened. God uses Jael, a Kenite woman to deliver Israel, thus proving Deborah’s prophecy true. Deborah was a leader and judge over Israel for 60 years, in all that time we see nothing recorded in scripture of men rebelling against her and her leadership, nor God saying she was not His anointed to lead. But men in fact sought her out regularly for Gods wisdom and counsel. I don’t know why many men and women try to make Deborah’s anointed rule, or Jaels courageous acts that delivered Israel into 40 years of peace under Deborahs leadership, why they overlook, try to change Gods word, or read into this things that aren’t said or happening. God is not a God of confusion, had Deborah not been His anointed choice of that time, why did He prophecy through her, why did all the Godly men of the time follow her, go to her, and not rebel. Nothing in Gods holy God breathed word shows she was anything other than Gods anointed judge. It’s sad that a viewpoint is often labeled a feminist viewpoint, which is sad because it shuts down discussion and further study. If God says women can’t be a leader over men, then, if it was some sort of exception, He would make that clear. People, men and women, put their bias that women can’t be leaders over men. If God gifts them to be, and He himself anoints them to that, we need to take note and understand all of scripture, knowing God never does things wrong or contradicts himself. It’s we who need to not bring bias and take scripture as whole. Again I go back to Genesis when God commanded them, Adam and Eve to rule and subdue equally. We have to take all of scripture into account, and remember who God is, Why if God doesn’t allow women to lead or rule over men, why did God anoint Deborah leader, why did God use Jael to deliver Israel, and remember God does nothing wrong. More people should talk about all hero’s of Bible, including women like Jael and Deborah. If God gifted and or used them, we should definitely take note and learn, and not say for God why He did that, let His scripture say what it says, and not read into it a bias. If God wanted it to be something more than what He put in scripture, He would have put it as so. Instead His clarity was she was a true prophet, she was an anointed and respected leader of Israel for 60 years, and Jael was a courageous women who God chose to deliver Israel.
5:10 i’m not sure there’s any way, you can see the hair is the covering, if you just continue reading the passage, it says that it is disgraceful for a woman to shave her head, and so if she does not cover while worshiping and praying, it is just the same as if she were to shave her head… It doesn’t make much sense to say that your hair is your covering, but if you don’t cover, you might as well, shave your head because it’s just as bad… No mind you I don’t really have a bias here I personally do not headcover at this point in my life I am studying the topic myself as a woman, but I just cannot get behind the idea that your hair is your covering just by reading the passage in its full context it would make no sense to say your hair is your covering, but if you don’t cover, you might as well shave your head it makes no sense
I agree, i don't wear one but after reading the passage again it's definitely not saying that long hair is the covering that Paul is referring to.
Agreed. This passage literally does not state that a woman’s hair IS the covering… it uses an appeal to nature to illustrate that even a woman’s long hair demonstrates a need for her to be covered. If one cannot interpret such a simple passage correctly, it makes me instantly question their lack of proper understanding in other passages as well.
@@susandesantell1379 my thoughts as well! I like Owen. I found him to be sound overall… but this one just makes NO sense. I pray Owen actually see’s this and does a deeper study.
Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 ESV
What in the world are you talking about??!! It says it right there!!
@@akadwriter read the whole passage for context
“Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.”
1 Corinthians 11:4-5 ESV
“For it’s the same as of it were shaven” Paul is using a woman’s long hair as a SMILIE… to pray or prophesy uncovered is the same as it just like .. or just as bad .. as a woman who were to shave her head. Both equally disgraceful in this passage…
It makes no sense to say- hey you must cover your head because if you don’t it’s just as disgraceful as I’d you shaved your head- BUT no worries your hair is your covering so you don’t have to cover actually… it doesn’t logically play out..
While spending lots of time reading through the Bible in a year, this passage was highlighted to me by God directly. The older woman I did Bible study with God also spoke to her about it in her reading. I did NOT want to wear a covering or look different, yet each time I looked this passage up in different version of scripture I had mixed understanding but still kept looking in other versions of the Bible so I could ease my conscience and say it was translated wrong. WELL, I decided to pray and ask God to show me CLEARLY what He’s saying so to remain obedient, because He says if you Love me you’ll obey. I still did NOT want to wear a covering and stand out but told God if He makes it’s clear I’ll obey. That night He CLEARLY showed me in a vivid dream that I STILL remember!! He IS saying for women to cover our heads because of the “angels” there’s a spiritual reason for this!! When the woman and I got together for our monthly Bible study, we both said I have to share with you what God has shown me. We NEVER talked before our study and God highlighted the SAME THING to both of us AND we both had never heard ANYTHING taught on this subject! God has spiritual principles that we’re not all savvy in, yet I don’t lean on my own understanding, I just obey. To go a step further to confirm, He brought a teaching to me that Derek Prince did, they were walking down a road in another country and the men were looking and making inappropriate comments to his wife Ruth and he or she (don’t recall) said to cover her head and as soon as she did, not a word from anyone afterwards!! She too was shown by God and didn’t minister or teach without it- she just obeyed! 👍🏻
“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
True, 1 Corinthians 11:10
I consider myself patriarchal and think Owen’s beliefs are very closely aligned to it.
I think Dale’s podcasts on women teachers were taken to say what he did not say. Owen’s view of women teachers is Dale’s view.
Great interview guys!
Thank you for this episode. I’m only 8:35 in and have not listened all the way through yet, but I have a sincere question. If one holds that the hair is what Paul is meaning by covering, why do men not shave their heads to pray and prophesy? The Scripture is very clear that men are to be uncovered and women are to be covered while praying or prophesying. So if one holds to the hair as the covering, then the logical next question would be, what qualifies as long? Might the last 70-80 years of the Church ignoring these biblically distinct principles between males and females have anything to do with the reality we are witnessing in the unbelieving pagan culture in America? Is it possible that we, as God’s people, have been unfaithful in this area? One more detail that is important. What immediately follows in 1 Corinthians 11? It doesn’t appear that Paul transitioned from something “minor” directly into the weighty matter of the Lord’s Supper. These are questions asked out of pure respect with a converted female heart that truly is convicted that we are in error as believers in minimizing this issue. God chose to make us gendered beings and uses our distinctions to image Him. Just as marriage serves as a living picture that we are responsible and privileged to participate in, it is possible covering and uncovering is another living image He uses as a visual reminder. To be transparent, i have been covering for only a few months after studying this passage extensively for months. And covering has been a beautiful and constant reminder (that i didn’t realize i needed so badly) that i am a woman under authority! It has helped me tremendously in the shutting down (killing) of my sinful, feminist thinking flesh when it rears its ugly head! It also served as the means that revealed how much i actually mis-used my hair, yes, even my hair seemed to be somewhat of an idol. It apparently meant more to me than it ought to have in my appearance. Shocking i know, but true. Practicing this principle has also served as an added bonus in the respect i have for and show my husband! Amazing what visual reminders are capable of! And one last thing i stumbled on recently is Numbers 6. Verse 7 specifically says…his separation to God is on his head. It seems that maybe the head is important in ways we haven’t realized. My apologies for the long comment. i truly desire it only serves to glorify God! i have experienced much unexpected joy since covering and honestly never saw it coming! It shouldn’t have surprised me though, every time He grants me repentance in an area of life that has always been the result! More joy in Him!
That’s the wonderful truth of the salvation message we are offered today, the free gift of Ephesians 2:8&9 KJV - it gives us the absolute freedom to do whatever we see fit (because all of our mistakes are already forgiven, Eph 1:7 KJV), so if a transvestite accepts the free gift, eternal life is theirs from that moment forward, whether they remain a transvestite or not. Israel’s law program (Acts 20:21 KJV) is over; we are living in the dispensation of the mystery which offers the free gift!
Very thoughtful comment. I began practicing covering several years ago but didn't continue when we joined (in error) a legalistic church. They believed that the hair was the covering. By contrast they also believed women shouldn't wear pants. I thought it odd for sure. So, I wouldn't seem as though I was being disrespectful, I stopped covering. I was so happy to read Mr Partridge book and it opened my eyes.
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her...
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
My thoughts: post length 7 minutes, scriptures outside of Corinthians mostly
Essay by another: post length 7 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians
Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary.
Wow, I really like your comment, I was part of the nar churches and the Lord opened my eyes to the true scriptures. There were women teachers there in nar. I listened to Keith Malcolmson teaching on head covering, it's a four part series.
“…the thing that is most astonishing here is that he appeals to creation, not to Corinth. 1 Cor. 11:3 If anything transcends local custom it is those things that are rooted and ordered in creation. That’s why I’m very frightened to be loose with this passage.” - R.C. Sproul
Our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words in to the Apostle’s mouth, but we are ignoring the words that are there.” As Dr. Sproul frequently noted, Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 11:2-12 grounds head coverings for wives in worship in the order of creation. Man was created first, which puts him in a position of authority over his wife; therefore, his wife should cover her head in corporate worship as a sign of her submission. Whatever role other cultural factors may play, grounding head coverings in the creation order suggests that the practice should be followed in every generation. It is something that reflects the world as it was created and how it should be.
The part about "Masculinity and Christ-like Character" is so good and helpful. For one, it puts into succinct words what many men (and women for that matter) see as the God-given role of men in the family - to be tough and meek at the same time, to be multidimensional and above all to to emulate Christ and be willing to repent again and again if we fail in that task. Also it is very practical to me as a husband and father of two. I only ever heard of Owen Strachan before this interview but never heard or read anything from him. I am impressed by the content, the depth and the irenic style with which he presents himself. Thanks Costi and Owen for this tremendous interview.
Definitely more with Owen Strachan.
This stuff is great. There is a whole segment of the church that has been growing and will continue to grow and that is the single woman however, who has not been able to marry or who is no longer married and find themselves ignored or even seen as less of a woman. The question for the church is how does the church handle this cultural reality? I have only heard extreme answers from both sides it is ignored. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
As a woman I love what you two are saying!
Me too!! ☺️☺️
I don’t have a problem wearing a head covering! It’s does no harm :)
It's a false teaching. All false teachings will do harm,
some how and some way. If you can't pray without
a fabric covering, then that fabric covering is a talisman.
Talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is
believed to have spiritual or magical properties. The object will align
with your intention for its use. Every time you look at a talisman, your
mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes
a necessary ritual.
@@8784-l3b no that’s not the purpose of it, it’s not magical or a talisman .. it’s a symbol of submission to Christ in the midst of the church. And not every woman wears a mantle, they wear hats and berets but with an understanding that it’s submission unto the Lord and that’s not an issue… it’s also someone’s own conviction
@@jocelynarcentales
Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
-NASB version
If the above scripture means a turban, for example, why would God require the priests to
wear turbans? Paul certainly would have known about this and maybe seen it.
You shall speak to all the skillful people whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may serve as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of checkered work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to Me.
-excerpt Exodus 28
Jesus prayed with something on His head while on the cross. A crown of thorns.
And they dressed Him in purple, and after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; and they began saluting Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!”
-excerpt Mark 15
And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” And having said this, He died.
-excerpt Luke 23
*******************************************
At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we?
“Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much.
-excerpt Luke 7
Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone...
-excerpt John 12
*************
It can only mean the hair is the covering, as the NASB states here:
Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering.
*********************************************************
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her; ...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT) 1 Corinthians 11 verse 13-15
************
No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering.
Therefore no Old Testament reference available.
1 Corinthians 11 starts with this:
...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you...
Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered...
So, there was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. There was no time to establish a tradition of a fabric covering. There was no way to "hold firmly to the traditions" because you can't start a 'tradition' in a period of time that is just a few years.
************
If the covering was a physical covering, then hair length is
irrelevant. No one would know if the woman had long hair
or no hair.
************
Also, if a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before
she can communicate with God, that would make the fabric covering
an idol. But one could also say it was a talisman I suppose, since a
talisman could be an article of clothing.
Talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is
believed to have spiritual or magical properties. The object will align
with your intention for its use. Every time you look at a talisman, your
mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes
a necessary ritual.
************
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?
Do not let agents of the devil stop you from obeying !!
@marriage4life893 yes I wear a beret :)
7 Reasons for head covering
So the very first reason for head coverings is because of the created order. This is the foundation that Paul said “I want you to understand” (1 Cor 11:3,8). This is not a cultural argument, but a transcendent argument as the Fathers headship is eternal and unchanging.
Because the ordinance of head covering is for certain times (v4-6), demonstrating a removable covering. (v6) It was to be worn during certain times (prayer and prophecy, or worship). This is not possible with hair. A man (men were instructed not to cover their heads) cannot remove his hair then put it back on when praying is done! “If a woman will not” demonstrates the covering was removable.
Because a woman’s hair (length according to the individual) is for her glory. (v15) Part of the purpose of the head covering is to veil this glory, not showcase it. Individual glory is the LAST thing any should want in the Presence of God!
Because this creates quite a quandary for women who cannot grow “long hair.” Think of Alopecia. Can they still pray and prophesy in certain settings? Regardless of hair length though, a covering can still be worn.
Because of the way verse 6 would read if we substituted “hair” or “long hair:” “If a woman will not [have long hair], let her cut her hair short…” Huh? She would already have done that! The whole point of that verse is to show the shame of her not covering.
Because it would be very odd if her symbol of authority in the presence of angels (v10) was one that gave her glory (v15), since the biblical testimony of angelic worship is not glory for angels, but angels showing humility and covering themselves. (Isa 6:1-3)
Because the Church agreed with the simplicity and power of this teaching for 1950 years, from the time of Apostles (v16) through the mid-Twentieth Century (1950-60s). We only began to disobey these precepts on a large scale when feminism hit the West like a tidal wave.
This was a fantastic discussion! I plan to listen again.
I Love Susan Heck she has been a great addition to the teachings from my elder's at my church. I as a woman can not understand why so many want to go against God's word in this(or any) subject!! As far as head covering goes I have always taken it as a womans hair is her covering but I don't belittle or not associate with the women I know whom wear coverings in my church! Awesome discussion gentlemen, Thank you!!
Very well said, and I wholeheartedly agree!
Verses 5 through 7, as well as verse 13, of 1 Corinthians 11 use a form of the Greek word for "veiled", κατακαλύπτω katakalupto; this is contrasted with the Greek word περιβόλαιον peribolaion, which is mentioned in verse 15 of the same chapter, in reference to "something cast around" as with the "hair of a woman … like a mantle cast around". These separate Greek words indicate that there are thus two headcoverings that Paul states are compulsory for Christian women to wear, a cloth veil and her natural hair.
Some have taken issue with the fact that the Greek word used for covering in verse 15 (περιβόλαιον - peribolaion) is a different word than the form of the word used for veiling/covering in verses 5-7 and 13 (κατακαλύπτω - katakalupto), the latter of which means "to cover wholly" or "to veil". Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, John W. Keddie, contended that if simply any hair were the covering Paul was talking about, then verse 6 would read "For if the women have no hair on her head, let her also be shorn", rendering the passage to be nonsensical.
Susan Heck teaches Jesus was depressed. These women constantly teach error. They may be well meaning but that’s a fact. Don Currins wife teaches Adam ate the apple so Eve wouldn’t die alone. I don’t condemn them but women teaching theology is against scripture.
@@barryallen119 well said. I fought this ordinance until I realized this. Also rendered nonsense, would be the verse directed to men… take your “hair” off? I bought a few scarves after seeing that 😂
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
It depends on the situation. Masculinity under control, taking charge when needed, being gentle when appropriate, non abusive aggression when protecting.
Matthew 21:12-13 comes to mind every time I click on these guys!
Sell your books. Sell your courses.
Oh that's right, perhaps we should get to Scripture!
When it comes to head coverings, it's actually new NOT to wear them. If you notice we still culturally don't alkow men to wear hats in church...its from the same Bible verses. It was during the sexual revolution and the growth of feminism that we actually saw a departure from wearing hats to church among women. That wasn't a simple fashion trend, but was rooted in the Biblical doctrine of head-coverings. I also will throw out, the fact that so many people are so emotionally charged about and against wearing a piece of cloth on their head for 1.5 hrs once a week....is a bit nuts to me. Like, why would it matter if it weren't about our inherent desire to disobey and rebel? Just some two cents.
Also patriarchy is not a "new" interpretation of Scripture. Its' been how it's been interpreted for most of Christian history. Having men be the leaders at home, in the church, society and in government is not a new concept, and is very clearly rooted in the text of Scripture.
you wrote:
Having men be the leaders at home, in the church, society and in government is not a new concept, and is very clearly rooted in the text of Scripture.
I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. She was a pastor, according to the scriptures. This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles, by God.
A woman could only be given the authority by God to execute a man for his sin, if women are spiritually equal to men. A Judge could judge homicide cases according to Deuteronomy. Therefore Deborah, as a Judge, could execute a man for his sin.
A Judge was cleared to teach from scripture as he/she gave a verdict, according to Deuteronomy. Since in Judges 4, men went to Deborah to be judged, a woman could teach men, even in the Old Covenant in a public setting.
_________________________________________________________________
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her...
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering.
-NASB
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
If a fabric covering is actually required,
then all references to hair are
totally irrelevant to the subject.
It only can make sense if the
long hair of a woman is the 'covering'.
She should be covered, with her long hair.
To have short hair, like a man, means that
she is basically bald. Therefore uncovered.
@@8784-l3b Deborah is an example that is often used to try to refute patriarchy. The issue is that those who use it to do that are completely missing the entire message of the whole story in Judges. Israel was in a time of great moral decay. Men had so abdicated their own role, were so cowardly at heart, that God had a woman lead them. it was literally supposed to be a slap in the face to Israel that their men were so limp-wristed that this became necessary. If you read the WHOLE story you also see Jael, a woman (not Deborah), is the hero of the story. Why? Because the captain was too afraid to go to war without a woman at his side. His condemnation was that she would go with him, but the glory would go to a woman. When we look at scripture we have to take all of it together, or else we get strange doctrines. When you look at this story in full, especially in the context of the book of Judges (where all men did what they thought was right in their own eyes) and even further in the context of the Bible (which very clearly teaches patriarchy), Deborah is actually an argument FOR patriarchy. There's a difference between what God will allow in a case of extreme moral decay, and what God's design for society is. Divorce is allowed because of sin, but it is not God's design for society. Ideally Christians are not getting divorced. It is not what Christians should be upholding as a great and wonderful thing. God had Hosea marry a woman of ill repute of the sake of making a point, but are we to take that passage as recommendations for men to seek wives among wayward women? NO! You read each passage in its context and in light of the whole Bible. Deborah was allowed to rule because the moral decay of men was so great. You will note, that when God sets up a king, he goes with a man.
Head coverings:
You are doing what many do and are again, not reading the whole passage. If you follow the logic of the passage from beginning to end you will find that the hair is yes a “natural” covering, but Paul literally uses that very fact to then argue that it is obvious that women should wear a head covering in church.
" Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a] is her husband,[b] and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife[c] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven."
What causes the confusion for a lot of people is that here Paul is actually using the fact that everyone understands that women have long hair and that it would be a disgrace for her to shave it as an argument for why a woman should wear a head covering during worship because of the angels and to represent her place in the created order.
“But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man…..That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.”
Why would a woman need a symbol of authority on her head if she just needs to have long hair? Most women at that time already had long hair and the passage itself shows that culturally everyone knew it would be disgraceful for a woman to be shaved. Why was this even a topic necessary to bring up then? Because he ISN’T talking about just hair. He is using hair length as well as the created order as examples of things his readers already know are obviously good and necessary to show that head covering is necessary and natural and right for a woman to do in church. Church history bears this out, with women wearing head coverings (hats) all the way up until the 60’s. Even still, men remove their hats to pray and when they enter churches.
What is even stranger is churches will claim long hair is the covering, and then be perfectly fine with their female members having pixie cuts and short hair, or men having long hair and man-buns. That is a slight digression from the topic, but it shows what I mean. There is an inherent wish to do away with God’s design, first with head coverings, now with hair length, and the church is doing little to stand in the way of that.
I recommend the sermons series by Brian Borgman called Men and Women in Worship. One sermon called Men and Women in Worship: Headcoverings is specifically going through this passage. You can find it on sermon audio I believe. Highly recommend.
Again, if we come to the Bible WITHOUT outside influences and just read what the Lord says patriarchy is glaringly clear. If we look at the passage on head coverings without any bias and just read it as it was meant to be read, logically following his point, then it's also obvious.
@@LizzyTwifehomemaker
(sorry for the delay, there was no notification to me)
you wrote:
Deborah was allowed to rule because the moral decay of men was so great.
Nothing in scripture says that.
you wrote:
Men had so abdicated their own role, were so cowardly at heart, that God had a woman lead them.
Nothing in scripture says that.
Then Deborah and Barak the son of Abinoam sang on that day, saying,
“For the leaders leading in Israel,
For the people volunteering,
Bless the Lord!
-excerpt Judges 5
My heart goes out to the commanders of Israel,
The volunteers among the people;
Bless the Lord!
-excerpt Judges 5
You're seeing Deborah through the eyes of Paul.
Search the scriptures, there was no gender qualification to be a
Judge over Israel.
The reason Deborah was sent as a Judge is here:
...the Lord was moved to pity...
And when the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge and saved them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the Lord was moved to pity by their groaning because of those who tormented and oppressed them.
-excerpt Judges 2
God wanted to show what he could do with women in Judges 4 and 5.
God made a woman a Judge over Israel. According to scripture, God
ruled Israel through a Judge.
God had a woman, not part of a battle, kill the enemy commander.
you wrote:
You will note, that when God sets up a king, he goes with a man.
The time of the Judges ended because God was rejected as King.
_________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION:
Before God was rejected by Israel for the rulership of men, that is, kings,
there were different 'seasons' so to speak. One of those seasons
was the time of the Judges.
...but they have rejected Me from being King over them.
Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah; and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint us a king to judge us like all the nations.” But the matter was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people regarding all that they say to you, because they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being King over them. Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day-in that they have abandoned Me and served other gods-so they are doing to you as well.
-excerpt 1 Samuel 8
_____________________________________________________________________
Full essay read time: 10 minutes
I loved this interview. Owen hit the nail on the head on every issue y'all discussed.
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
Great stuff! Is there a chance that Dale will be able to speak for his stands in this platform?
Man is the Glory of God and woman is the Glory of man. For a woman to teach a man is the same as Man instructing God.
Verses 5 through 7, as well as verse 13, of 1 Corinthians 11 use a form of the Greek word for "veiled", κατακαλύπτω katakalupto; this is contrasted with the Greek word περιβόλαιον peribolaion, which is mentioned in verse 15 of the same chapter, in reference to "something cast around" as with the "hair of a woman … like a mantle cast around". These separate Greek words indicate that there are thus two headcoverings that Paul states are compulsory for Christian women to wear, a cloth veil and her natural hair.
Some have taken issue with the fact that the Greek word used for covering in verse 15 (περιβόλαιον - peribolaion) is a different word than the form of the word used for veiling/covering in verses 5-7 and 13 (κατακαλύπτω - katakalupto), the latter of which means "to cover wholly" or "to veil". Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, John W. Keddie, contended that if simply any hair were the covering Paul was talking about, then verse 6 would read "For if the women have no hair on her head, let her also be shorn", rendering the passage to be nonsensical.
Love this! Why do you think churches or leadership has been so silent on some of these secondary issues?
Will Dale be invited soon? Or any patriarchalist?
Lol😂 that’s not how these guys work…. Owen is a professional shadow boxer…
What about women professors teaching Bible classes to both men and women at Christian colleges? Is that alright?
Costi i have a question- several years ago our family transitioned to another country where my wife has the main job. Part of the reason is her qualifications but also language- before I was the main financial provider in an English speaking place, but now where we are she is, because of the language and her job. In this situation, do you think I am in sin because she has the main income(I have had some lesser - income jobs in our current situation) - thanks
This is interesting. Thank you for posting. Can you try to clean up the sound? It's a bit distorted. Thanks.
Thank you for posting this. Your video kept popping up on my feed and I avoided listening to it because I’ve been asking the Lord about the women in ministry question a lot lately. I go to a church where my pastor is very progressive and he encourages me to step into roles typically held by men (I.e. elder and teaching the congregation on Sundays).
I’m falling more in the soft complimentarian side because I do see women in ministry in scripture but not in the roles spelled out in Timothy and Titus.
I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah.
Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually.
She was a pastor, according to the scriptures.
This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles.
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.
Wow that was super interesting! Excellent
QUESTION:.🤷🏻♀️
Coming out of a UPCI church, they teach that long hair means, completely uncut hair once you become saved through following Acts 2:38 to a "t", do you have any teaching to explain this fallacy? 🙏🏻
Thank you for your work.
Perfect.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. That whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
It’s actually sad to see teachers who claim to be faithful to the Word compromise on this issue, he is not the first. The Corinthians head coverings for women was discussed in the church back in the eighties when we were less liberal and less influenced by the culture. It was difficult back then because of the subservient connotations towards women. But a faithful teaching of these verses is that its Paul teaching on Christian behaviors when gathering to worship God. Our respect for God precludes us from distracting from the worship of God, so in this particular case women are to diminish their external beauty as an honor to The Lord. It has never been about equality or feminism but the culture pushes us and so teachers waffle and compromise, the correct understanding is the these verses still apply when the proper spirit of the teachings is taught! So women are to “cover” and in my opinion apply modesty in their attire, let their beauty be inner especially at church. I see Dr Owen was not willing to state that and instead used a very improbable interpretation of hair length, improbable because hair length was not just biblically discussed for women, but modesty is!
Good video
FYI--Mothers often put essential oils on their sons and husbands but some such as lavender and tea tree oils have estrogen-like substances in them and lower testosterone.
1 Cor 11- Owen is off. This chapter is rich in church polity. The way we administer the Lord's Table is also in this book. Women, up until feminism in the enlightenment, wore a head cover. Study art throughout history and you'll see headcovering is a sign of headship, not hair.
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her...
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. This was the original teaching. Eventually a fabric covering came along as a false teaching.
...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.
And more:
But by no manner of means are women to be allotted to uncover and exhibit any part of their person, lest both fall,-the men by being excited to look, they by drawing on themselves the eyes of the men.
-Clement of Alexandria - 'The Instructor' about 198 A.D.
But the word says it, so why not obey it, for women wearing head cover? 5:58
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her...
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
@@8784-l3b let's stick with hair as a covering, then could you please help me understand
4Every man praying or prophesying, having the head covered, doth dishonour his head, 5and every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, doth dishonour her own head, for it is one and the same thing with her being shaven, 6for if a woman is not covered - then let her be shorn, and if [it is] a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven - let her be covered; 7for a man, indeed, ought not to cover the head, being the image and glory of God, and a woman is the glory of a man,
As you said covering is hair, does men shave their heads every time before praying as they are not allowed to wear a covering. I'd say no, unless one has gone bald or chosen to shave it off (like me). It's scripture that has to be taken in full context and not pick and choose. Hence I stick with the covering as a cloth or similar material and not with hair as a covering. I'm not here for a debate or a fight.
@@FinneyJacobp
you wrote:
please help me understand
you wrote:
I'm not here for a debate or a fight.
Ok, so which is it??? I have my thoughts
which take 5 minutes to read. Also a short
essay by another, about this matter that looks at
Corinthians only. That also takes 5 minutes
to read.
@@8784-l3b please share your thoughts.
I'm so sorry English isn't my first language and thanks for your patience on this. Could you please explain further? Thanks
@@FinneyJacobp
Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
-NASB version
If the above scripture means a turban, for example, why would God require the priests to
wear turbans? Paul certainly would have known about this and maybe seen it.
You shall speak to all the skillful people whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may serve as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of checkered work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to Me.
-excerpt Exodus 28
Jesus prayed with something on His head while on the cross. A crown of thorns.
And they dressed Him in purple, and after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; and they began saluting Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!”
-excerpt Mark 15
And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” And having said this, He died.
-excerpt Luke 23
*******************************************
At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we?
“Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much.
-excerpt Luke 7
Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone...
-excerpt John 12
*************
It can only mean the hair is the covering, as the NASB states here:
Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering.
*********************************************************
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her; ...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT) 1 Corinthians 11 verse 13-15
************
No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering.
Therefore no Old Testament reference available.
1 Corinthians 11 starts with this:
...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you...
Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered...
So, there was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. There was no time to establish a tradition of a fabric covering. There was no way to "hold firmly to the traditions" because you can't start a 'tradition' in a period of time that is just a few years.
************
If the covering was a physical covering, then hair length is
irrelevant. No one would know if the woman had long hair
or no hair.
************
Also, if a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before
she can communicate with God, that would make the fabric covering
an idol. But one could also say it was a talisman I suppose, since a
talisman could be an article of clothing.
Talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is
believed to have spiritual or magical properties. The object will align
with your intention for its use. Every time you look at a talisman, your
mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes
a necessary ritual.
************
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?
Owen's voice starts to crack from 6:30 onwarrd unfortunately :( It's hard to follow
Ya'll should check out the book Headcoverings: A forgotten christian practice for modern times by Jeremy Gardiner
It's an exegetical argument.
The guys voice is quaking I think it is a bad microphone connection?
This all comes from the pendulum swing of our culture from Michael Foster's book "It is good to be a Man"
He wants to be the Andrew Tate of Christianity. The subtitle of that book should be 'It sucks to be a woman'...
The Federal Vision teachings of the last 20 or so years have birthed this Radical Patriarchy, not all of it but most of it comes out of Moscow.
I was saved out of Mormonism 34 years ago, very very similar,
Faith + works
Theonomy
Baptism unto membership
Radical Patriarchy etc etc.
19:06 🔥
Boaz= "strength"
Genuine question: are you guys saying that a woman working outside of the home is not Biblical womanhood? My husband is not ok with me not working and I am the breadwinner. My husband works in ministry/non profit and there’s no way our family could live on his income in this area. So, am I sinning? (This isn’t an argument…it’s a real question.)
I know this is directed at the these men.
It's not sinful for a women to work outside the home, what's sinful is if a women neglects her home for a career.
Bible is pretty clear on the home being the woman's work. She can work from.home to supplement income but should not be working outside of it. Is husband in full-time ministry? Time to go part-time perhaps. A woman working outside the home fulltime is neglecting her own home. That being said, a wife is to submit to her husband. But I would question a husband.being okay woth his wife working outside the home fulltime. Doesnt fit with what is commanded in the Bible.
@@jolo7173 I carry the insurance for our family. If I went part time, we’d have no insurance. I work full time and homeschool our children and take care of the home. Not sure what else I can do.
@@jolo7173what about the married couple that cannot have children and are unable to adopt or foster yet? What about those wives? Should they just sit around until able to have children? Keeping a home is a job, but without kids it most definitely is not a full time job if the keeper of home is working diligently everyday. It would take maybe 1-2 days of a week to deep clean a larger home when kids are not involved. The Bible doesn’t say a woman CANT work outside of the home. The Proverbs 31 woman was in the market place and going out to buy fields. She was doing her business about the town for the sake of her home. Her home was not being neglected.
@@jolo7173 Care to back up this spewed nonsense with Scriptures???
Where does the Bible say that if a woman works outside the home she is sinning?
Or neglecting her home??
Back it up or shut up and stop burdening believers with extra Biblical commands. Satan already does that!!
Because we need biblical masculinity back. Marriages have failed bc role have been out of order.....feminism.
Many of us regenerated ex feminists know what we've done and see men have been emasculated. I feel in a sense they've given up bc women have usurped their roles.
We are looking for masculine men who want to take charge and we know we women yearn for it.
Is it wrong for a woman to share a personal testimony in front of the church? Not trying to teach doctrine.
Sounds like if you're aligning with this view and are consistent, that that would involve her speaking.
Which is a no no
leaterry
I suggest my short and free essay on Deborah.
Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually.
She was a pastor, according to the scriptures.
This is how the Judges are described in Chronicles.
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.
So, women can teach. etc. The gospel message
is a teaching. The first and most important.
The Lord gives the command;
The women who proclaim good news are a great army
-excerpt Psalm 68 A Psalm of David.
👏
It’s not hard to figure out at all because everything written before Israel lost her kingdom in Acts 28:28-31 KJV, and everything written in Paul’s letters only applied to the Jews and Greeks in his churches; and WE as pagan Gentiles would not have been allowed into those churches because we are not ritually clean because we did not and do not observe the ordinances that the Greeks received from the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15! Nothing in Acts applies to us that are saved by accepting the free gift with no strings attached in Ephesians 2:8&9 KJV - the gospel that replaced all other gospels that had been connected with Israel’s (failed) relationship with God that ended abruptly and permanently at Acts 28:28-31 KJV when that world ended (Acts 26:22 KJV) - prophecy; and a new world - mystery, began (Ephesians 3:9 KJV)! It needs to be understood that even though pagans are addressed and mentioned (“the faithful in Christ Jesus,” Ephesians 1:1 KJV), we probably still weren’t allowed inside the synagogues where the Acts believers met, and that, besides those words specifically about and to us pagans in Ephesians and Colossians, the rest of those two epistles are addressed to the Jews and Greeks in those churches who were still very much obeying the Law and the Acts 15 ordinances and weren’t about to give up everything they knew!
I headcover! Neither one of you by the way quoted scripture. You always quote the scripture and I’m not a seminary student.
Long hair is the covering. It is irrelevant if what some people deemed as the "first" churches used veils or something on their heads. That is going outside the Scriptures to try to prove a doctrine. To make it appear that certain religious groups for a long period of time could not be wrong flies in the face of Scripture. "My people are destroyed due to lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6. And the best "biblical" proof is Acts 7:47-51 when Stephen tells the tale of how WRONG the Jews were to believe that God cared about building a temple. If you know the story David wanted to build God a temple/house. God said no. Solomon (David's son) built one but God never asked to do that. So for MANY years people thought it was ok to built a temple. They were wrong and for a long time. Plus what does the 1960's have to do with women not wearing hats? One needs to be clear on the reason. One can only assume due to the cultural revolutions of the 60's in the US and some parts of Europe that the whole world stopped using hats. Sounds goofy. Plus again this is not a biblical argument. One can also argue that during that time people started reading the bible en masse and came to many logical conclusions and stopped following false doctrines. Disobedience can lead to destruction therefore follow the Bible not someone's interpretation of the Bible. If willing I can provide biblical proof.
If you don't look to the early church as a hint on what St Paul meant with his letter. It is hubris in the extreme to think you have a better understanding of the Greek used than the people of Corinth whose native tongue was the same Greek that Paul used. Same Greek at the same time all the nuances and subtleties of the words Paul wrote were immediately understood by the people of Corinth. Therefore we need to look at how they interpreted Paul's words. Eyewitnesses say that the men were bare headed and the women were veiled.
Back to Genesis 1:26-28 God tells both men and women to fill the earth and subdue. God made no distinction man rules and women follow them, He told them both to rule and subdue. That was from the get go, after the fall we have the curse, but Gods original design stated clearly, says God tells THEM to rule and subdue, both men and women, no, distinction, but equally ruling and subduing. Read for yourself, unclouded by others opinions. Then New Testament, we all follow Jesus. There is no Greek, Jew, male or female, all are one in Christ Jesus. Also Paul gives instruction for women to prophecy in church, if women were to never talk in church Paul would not give instruction for them to do so, so when he instructs them elsewhere to not talk, we need to dig deeper at what is going on. Women in that church were being disruptive, not an instruction for all time, or Paul would of contradicted himself, then scripture would be inaccurate, which God breathed, so is not, dig deeper. Also, during the time of God appointed Judges, God appointed Deborah. There was plenty of men, He could of rose up a fearful “Gideon” but He appointed Deborah. God is not a God of confusion, the prophetess Mariam, leading, God allowed ordained all of this and more. Dig deeper. There is a lot of reading into scripture what isn’t really said on the issue of women..
@marriage4life893 Yes Deborah gave a command from the Lord, and for those who think she wasn’t chosen by God to lead, she boldly says The Lord commands, then she prophecies from the Lord, because Barack didn't do what God instructed him to do, he chose to ask Deborah to go, and only then would he go, Deborah then prophesied from God that the war would be won by a woman. And the proof she is a true prophet of God is, that is what happened. God uses Jael, a Kenite woman to deliver Israel, thus proving Deborah’s prophecy true. Deborah was a leader and judge over Israel for 60 years, in all that time we see nothing recorded in scripture of men rebelling against her and her leadership, nor God saying she was not His anointed to lead. But men in fact sought her out regularly for Gods wisdom and counsel.
I don’t know why many men and women try to make Deborah’s anointed rule, or Jaels courageous acts that delivered Israel into 40 years of peace under Deborahs leadership, why they overlook, try to change Gods word, or read into this things that aren’t said or happening. God is not a God of confusion, had Deborah not been His anointed choice of that time, why did He prophecy through her, why did all the Godly men of the time follow her, go to her, and not rebel. Nothing in Gods holy God breathed word shows she was anything other than Gods anointed judge. It’s sad that a viewpoint is often labeled a feminist viewpoint, which is sad because it shuts down discussion and further study. If God says women can’t be a leader over men, then, if it was some sort of exception, He would make that clear. People, men and women, put their bias that women can’t be leaders over men. If God gifts them to be, and He himself anoints them to that, we need to take note and understand all of scripture, knowing God never does things wrong or contradicts himself. It’s we who need to not bring bias and take scripture as whole. Again I go back to Genesis when God commanded them, Adam and Eve to rule and subdue equally. We have to take all of scripture into account, and remember who God is, Why if God doesn’t allow women to lead or rule over men, why did God anoint Deborah leader, why did God use Jael to deliver Israel, and remember God does nothing wrong.
More people should talk about all hero’s of Bible, including women like Jael and Deborah. If God gifted and or used them, we should definitely take note and learn, and not say for God why He did that, let His scripture say what it says, and not read into it a bias. If God wanted it to be something more than what He put in scripture, He would have put it as so. Instead His clarity was she was a true prophet, she was an anointed and respected leader of Israel for 60 years, and Jael was a courageous women who God chose to deliver Israel.
@@marchant8601 Timothy 2: 12 which is rooted in Gods perfect creation order and as such is for all time and in all churches