Biblical Womanhood & Head Coverings | with Bnonn Tennant
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 апр 2022
- In this episode of Theology Applied, Pastor Joel Webbon is joined by Bnonn Tennant (It’s Good To Be A Man) to discuss women wearing head coverings at church, the concept of glory, the principle of submission, and a whole lot more! Subscribe to our RUclips channel for more content like this.
To support Right Response Ministries, visit: rightresponseministries.com/d...
Subscribe to Theology Applied full episodes below:
Apple podcast: bit.ly/theologyapplied
Spotify podcast: bit.ly/theologyappliedspotify
If you live in the Austin area, Pastor Joel just started planting a brand new church called Covenant Bible Church in Hutto, Texas. He would love for you to come visit on a Sunday. Check out the church’s website for details: covenantbible.org/
#headcover #biblicalwomanhood #womanhood
_________________________________________________
Keywords: theology, Reformed theology, podcast, Christian podcast, theology podcast, theology show, Christian show, the gospel
A couple of things:
1. Referring to the movie Anna and the King (Jodie Foster) where she went against Siam's culture (no one was allowed to stand in the presence of the king) making herself equal to the king, this got to the point that when she would advise him and he would heed her advice, it appeared to the people that she was in charge. This stood out to me one morning as I was praying about this very issue. For years, about 15 or so, I have been struggling with this passage feeling convicted to cover. Yet, any and every pastor I would ask would tell me it was for 1st century Christians and my hair is my covering. A couple months ago I sat straight up in bed and said "Anna and the king!" How it must appear to the angels when we pray uncovered.
2. I have very long thick curly hair and often get compliments on it. One Sunday, a woman new to our church approached me and said she noticed my hair from the back of the church. At this point in time I had only been covering anytime I would pray or teach Bible to my children, or to the Cubbies class on Wednesday nights, but hadn't yet discerned the true meaning of prophesying as discussed in this video. I would slip up my covering during prayer, but slide it back down when not praying. Is it when anyone is prophesying and I am listening (like pastor preaching)? Or just when I am (like when teaching my children or explaining Scripture to a friend)? Is singing prophesying? When she brought attention to my hair it affirmed the whole "takes away from God's glory" issue.
3. When women cover their heads all day everywhere, as in Amish or Mennonite religions, I feel like it takes away from the significance of it. I am reminded each time I put on my veil, to approach God in prayer, how reverently I should be approaching Him. Contrast that with a flippant "make all the lights green, Lord!" prayer we blurt out when running late (reminds me of Anna and the King, again).
4. This can't be referring to only married women, as some interpret, because then there would be single women taking God's glory away. Secondly, with this in mind, how we dress for worship is equally important to covering our heads. Doesn't do much good to put a cover over our hair if our skirts are skin tight and our legs are uncovered. Sadly, I've seen a lot of this, especially among teen girls, getting up to sing in church revealing everything. All attention is directed towards them and away from God.
5. Lastly, it also doesn't do much good to make an argument for covering if we are not in submission to our husbands, who are not in submission to the Lord. When you mentioned how man is God's image, it's that much more important for us to be behaving as He would have us, especially if we are testifying to Him. We should certainly be resembling Him in how we are living. Unfortunately, modern commentaries have undone so much of God's word, that we are now living as if to abuse His grace and a mere handful of chapters in the New Testament are applicable.
Excellent observations sister Annie! Thanks for sharing. Yeah, this podcast has been so extremely eye opening. Pray for my wife. She's having a hard time with this. I'm not being pushy at all, (at least trying not to), lol. But I have been clear and unapologetic that I believe scripture declares it's sin to not cover her hair during these functions because of the angels.
Bnonn explains the angels aspect c 27:00 and I’m convinced by that. It’s a metonymy, using one thing to refer to something represented by that thing, like “the White House” represents the current presidential administration. So it’s really got nothing to do with the angels personally, it’s just that she should have a covering on her head *to reflect the appropriate cosmic order*
TY so much for this! I feared I was the only one to ever ask "Is singing prophesying?" Judging from the looks I received, the two times I dared ask, we are certainly not in a majority. Oh well, I'm no longer solo in my questions LOL. I can't express how much relief that makes me feel. Oh, and I would not suggest, at least for a man, to bring to attention the ultra short skirts worn by teens during the music worship. To mention it proves you're a lust filled wicked pervert. I left that church, rather was "shunned out", anyways... God bless for your candor and spot on observations.
@@je3199 I truly wish more men felt freer to bring ungodliness to attention, without being labled. If churches were actually teaching men how to lead, and husbands and wives being in submission one to another, children how to obey, and wait - isn't that "if churches were actucally teaching BIBLE?" LOL If it's not the church's job to teach those things, whose is it? And if no one is teaching, how will we learn? Is it "to each his own?" I think not! There will be far more people sitting in church the Sunday after the rapture than there will be missing.
Sister, how do cover your head? A hat, a piece of lace? I want to learn more.
I am one of 2 women who wear a head covering at church 😊
@@christianmama2441 amen sister 😘
I've recently become convicted of this. I don't think it'll change my church, but I know it will influence my daughters and family in a good way. It is a reminder of who I am supposed to be.
@@rh10033 Amen! Girl, that is so true, follow the Spirits conviction then show your daughter by example your obedience despite the fact that you may be the only one. I figure, same thing, obedience in one little area. It hasn’t changed the women in my church but God sees our hearts. God bless you sister 😘
Same… and I attend a reformed Baptist congregation. Furthermore, of the three of us, I’m the only one who covers all my hair… the other two just wear a headband. I appreciate their sentiment but I don’t feel like it’s quite accomplishing what the command is requiring. I’m not in a position to say so, of course.
@@mrsme6855 yes, I attend a reformed baptist church as well. I wish they knew what Calvin and RC Sproul had to say on the matter of head covering
So edifying! This format is a keeper, IMHO. I always felt this was required, but could not articulate it, nor refute the objections. Glory be too God for this incredibly clear and thought provoking study. I have been convinced. More over, I think I can express WHY now. TY TY
Thank you for this discussion, gentlemen! When I cover, it has been a very meaningful practice, and I can personally testify to it helping me grow in obedience. It’s been an interesting journey, with other Christian sisters worried that I’m becoming “religious” or “legalistic”. I have felt to be spiritually ‘safer’ out in the world with a covering when I have done so, and in a way I can’t quite put into right words. And, in prayer, the covering keeps me more focused and helps with distracting fiery darts, so to speak. Almost like putting blinders on. Because of these things, it seems to me it’s not just some rule to be followed as symbolized by the Creation Order, and for glory covering, but also because God loves us, and knows it to be good. As a bonus I don’t get as many fleshy looks from men. Haha… for what that’s worth. And, furthermore, I cover for the love of my brothers in Christ…
Praise be to God!
Pastor Joel, if you happen to read this, do you know any reformed pastor friends in lower Michigan by chance? In need of a strong Church here.
Can’t speak for him but I can mention sites with church lookups that he’d agree with
G3 - reformed Baptist churches, likely to have come from the sbc
Reformed wiki - reformed Baptist churches
Discerning Christians - churches that reject CRT , social justice, “woke”
Church and Family Life - “family integrated” churches, which will be nondenominationally exclusive, reformed, young earth, pro homeschooling, and not “programmatic” in approach to ministries
That looked so wrong…. denominationally nonexclusive , carries the meaning I wanted
Unfortunately, I don’t know of any churches in that area. But if you ever want to move to Texas, we’d love to have you!
Not sure if you consider Grand Rapids “lower MI” but Joel Beeke’s church is Reformed; not reformed Baptist but it’s reformed.
I agree with you, all the way. It has made a huge difference for me for the same reasons. I am absolutely amazed by how many modern day pastors preach that this is just for first century Christians! It surprises many to learn that back in the 60's during the women's lib movement, they got together and burned their head coverings! Up until that time women wouldn't even think to attend church without something on their heads. Now, as I understand it, the whole covering symbol itself had certainly begun to make its own cultural adaptations, going from a standard veil to crazy fancy hats, but 60 years ago it was widely accepted, globally even, that women were to cover.
I am also in search of a church that better reflects God's order and intent for His church, I'm in NW Ohio. Let me know if you find something in Southern Michigan, it would be worth the drive!
I have a feeling feminism has something to do with women not covering
There is a book about it on Amazon that asserts that very thing.
@@conceptualclarity do you remember what it's called?
@@vanessaloy1049 I don't understand it's not an apostolic gift
I am old enough to remember my mother and sister wearing hats to church regularly in a Protestant church (in the 50s). Then the mid-60s hit with the Pill, student protests, Women's Lib, and the Sexual Revolution. Soon women were no longer wearing hats or any head coverings in churches. As I understand it, Vatican II allowed Catholic women to stop wearing veils at the same time period.
The Bonnet Rebellion was organized by the national Association of women for Easter Sunday, 1969. That was the beginning of women no longer covering, either with hats or a veil, in the churches of America.
I would love for you to do a follow up on practical ways for women to be obedient in head coverings.
I’ve been feeling conviction on this for a while now, but I’m not sure how exactly to live in obedience. What does it look like exactly?
Do I take a Shaw with me everywhere? Or just in corporate worship? I literally pray throughout the day, in constant communication with the Lord- do I need to be wearing a head-covering at all times?
Also, won’t this draw attention to ourselves? It’s a bit confusing and would love your thoughts.
I second this!!
I third this!
m.ruclips.net/video/H1BMO1965O8/видео.html
at least on the drawing attention part it can be said that what would be drawing attention is the sign of authority you are demonstrating between you and god. that's the sort of attention we should want to be drawing, probably.
@@xxxViceroyxxx And further, that if we are drawing attention to good character rather than beautiful faces or bodies, then that's good
This was one of my favorite episodes you’ve posted and very helpful. The western person has lost the ability to follow and understand themes and Bnonn did a GREAT job of helping us get it back. God bless
Yes he did. Thanks for the encouragement!
This was very helpful, thanks for addressing one of the most feared topics in the church.
Joel's mind was blown by the Glory behind the glory! I saw the glory coming from his ears!
Oh, PLEASE have me on your show to talk more about this. I am nobody. Just a woman who has done a deep dive and have had my heart and life rocked by this passage. It has been life and faith altering, and would be such an encouragement to women in looking at this practice! I have a book drafted on my laptop about it, but am looking to discuss the topic a little before trying to publish.
How about a montage of testimonials by women who had a similar experience? I bet you could get submissions from many
Yes! Amen
I am a sister-in-Christ and would love to discuss with you.
@@eleaneconwell7741 I would love to!
I, too, would love to discuss this with you!!
Also to your point against Wilson's view, if you look at the Greek when hair is refered to as a 'covering' and the word used for 'head covering' are two different Greek words. They are not the same thing.
That and the freight train of church history for 1900 years (including American Presbyterians)
It's pretty clear that Paul is imparting the Jewish custom of the OT period as command in the NT era, and undergirding it with theological pinnings. The Jewish women to this day still cover their hair, but they have no formal command. We HAVE the command, so our women should be outdoing them in this. The Mennonites got it locked down, though.
No women at my church cover. I agree that Paul is teaching women should wear a covering so as not to draw undue attention to their “glory” in a worship service. However, it seems like I would be drawing a weird amount of attention to myself if I showed up covered in a congregation/culture that didn’t cover. What to do?:(
I am in this same situation. For this exact reason, I have decided to wear hats that coordinate with my fashion style. People just think I’m ‘a hat person’.
I go to a megachurch with no headcovering... I haven't worn a FULL head cover yet, but have worn a half cover or wear the cover as a thick headband. I've had these exact thoughts and I simply remember I need not worry about others thoughts, but only worry about what God thinks. Hope that helps 🙏
And honestly, no one really thinks anything of it. I haven't felt any stares or felt strange.
If you're trying to fit in with the feminists so that they aren't confronted in their false view of authority and submission, then you're doing it wrong. Go whole hog. It is meant to be a witness to the created order God made. Therefore you WILL get opposition. But if the opinions of ungodly women matters more than your husband's or God's, then YIKES
If I’m trying to fit in? I’m not. That wasn’t my point. It’s not reputation or opposition I’m talking about. But simply being worried about drawing attention away from others worshiping God by dressing in a distracting way (with a head covering.) I’m just saying it feels tricky is all…if the point is modesty and covering your “glory”. Not everyone who doesn’t cover is a feminist. It’s a confusing topic and passage that but most teachers aren’t teaching about much. I’m glad for this video. I found it helpful.
I love this discussion ❤ thank you
Excellent Excellent Excellent bible study here! Good description at the beginning as your one stop shop for this particular subject! I think I need to buy my wife a pretty hat 👒!
FAVORITE POINTS
23:11 Angels
44:17 Contentious
54:04 Hair
55:46 Glory and Covering
1:03:29 Glory and Worship
That explanation (23:10) of "because of the angels" just solved so much of my confusion on 1 Cor. 11:10 that I've had for years! That was so brilliant! To add to and bolster this interpretation: cross reference 1 Cor. 11:12 to 1 Cor. 15:27 which is quoting Psalm 8! Tennant got it exactly right!
Before listening: my big question is where exactly this should apply. Does “pray and prophesy” really limit the scope to just the corporate worship? With the way Paul argues for it, is the woman NOT under authority when she’s at home or the office or the voting booth? And if it’s only for the gathering, ought we not stop the practice of men taking their hats off when praying outside of the Sunday gathering?
Interesting interpretation at the very end: that Paul could be saying, “I’ve explained why her glory should be covered, but as a side note, it ought to be covered lest it be a scandalizing shame for it to be seen.” That that verse could be an aside, which is why it seems to break with the flow of the argument
This was good. I take 1 Cor 11 through vs 16 to be referring to praying anywhere(can see vestiges of this when men are asked to remove hats at prayer before HS football game in the south), but let’s recover it at least somewhere!
Well done, guys.
I’ve been studying HeadCovering for years. I have some amazing videos about it.
I am interested in these videos!
@@user-zx1sm8bg3c 🫶🏼♥️🫶🏼♥️🫶🏼
The hats at weddings thing is perhaps the last vestige of 1 Cor 11.
Also, I don't think I've ever seen Queen Elizabeth in Church without a hat or headscarf.
I would love a second part too, as others mentioned 🙃
This is worth listening to 2 or 3 times! Or more perhaps
Amen
Thank you for this vdo.
The "head covering" is not just a physical covering.... it means to pray keeping your rank and file in mind while doing so. Wives are not to pray for things that her husband would disagree or abhore, or to teach or instruct her children in rebellious ways. In the same manner that the Husband and Father shouldn't teach contrary to The Word. It's a physical reminder of a spiritual principle.
If that's the case why is it dishonoring for a man to pray with his head covered?
If that’s the case , why don’t men pray or dare to attend church without being nagged to? Wives are always having to lead their husbands spiritually.
@@gabrielamartiniuc6322 while that may be your experience, that’s not what God designed.
@@jenreads5682 why did men where specific coverings in synagogue?🤔
@@gabrielamartiniuc6322 exceptions to the rule. Don't blanket statement the word always with husbands. Honestly though many rooted men don't feel welcome in churches. Many churches in this country at this point anyway are centered around women and children, effeminate and woke, feel good and heavily theology based framed for self help. I don't blame men for not wanting to attend, but it's also their responsibility as husbands and spiritual leaders to find a church that fits them, which should fit you and the children.
I recall listening to a Matt Chandler sermon (one of my pastor's asked me to blah) some time back where he was speaking on the topic of woman being the helpmate, but the way he portrayed it was that men need a helpmate because they're deficient in life and inferior. No recognition that when a man is partaking of the Great Commision, on mission, he needs his wife to be in submission to be his helpmate; nothing to do with any kind of inferiority or helplessness on the man's part. A man who is not on mission doesn't need a helpmate as much because there's no mission to help with. I think if the etymology of the word 'submission' were studied, it'd give women more confidence to be the submissive helpmate that a man needs. Women want to be with a man on mission, but their feminist factory settings can sabotage so much.
it does help when the man has a clear and valuable mission, though.
@@xxxViceroyxxx might want to re-read it. I did say that.
@@JR-rs5qs im good
@@xxxViceroyxxx off the cuff bias replies to comments without thoroughly reading them, don't help
liberal Matt Chandler
UGH!
How specific does the natural argument with long vs short hair go? I agree with the general sentiment, but exception cases lead me to wonder. For example, African cultures seem historically not bear out in long hair for women compared to men, but each relatively short, which isn’t a rebellious result but an outcome that is more naturally-based. And today across cultures, there are plenty of hairstyles for women that are short and medium length, but are intended to be feminine through style and volume.
To be clear, I agree with the general sentiment, but it seems to me that the natural argument is meant to reinforce the need for clear distinctions that denote male and female, and in most cases, it bears out naturally in longer hair signaling the feminine, yet not in every case. Unless I’m missing something.
We see the imaging matter spelled out more clearly, IMO, in Ephesians 5. Within the context of marriage, a man images God and a woman images man.
Joel, I looked at the photos on your website. I didn't see any woman in them with a full head covering and only one with a wide headband. Please explain. I am honestly struggling with this one.
I don’t exercise church discipline over coverings. I believe it is the correct position, but it takes time to persuade, not coerce.
@@RightResponseMinistries I feel like if ALL were encouraged to do it, then no one would feel awkward about it. That's where I struggle here.
All are “encouraged.”
@@RightResponseMinistries I didn't mean you, Joel. I was meaning in the greater Christian community and at local churches in my area. I am truly sorry if that came across wrong.
@christianmama Hmm… that would come across as pushy to me. Think back to when there were face masks in the lobbies of churches-what if they put up a sign that said, “love your neighbor” above them. I would walk out.
Now the difference is that the head covering is truly commanded and the verse applies, whereas the face mask is not and the verse is mis-applied. However, as to pushy-ness, it is still pushy.
Also, is there an age in which women are to start wearing head coverings? I have heard it is a practice for grown women only but not sure where that idea stems from.
if it pertains to authority, it would make sense for daughters too, since they are under the authority of their father. And the glories spoken of are not with respect to marriage only -- woman does not become the glory of man only when she marries
My husband just finished listening to It’s Good to Be a Man. He really enjoyed it! Can you please recommend any similarly practical reformed books for men? Thanks!
C. R. Wiley has some good books.
Hello, is it possible for your wife to show us what she wears for a head covering and how to wear it? This episode was so clear and convicting. Thank you.
Great question. I’ll talk to her.
the bible covenant church do women cover their heads? Can anyone tell?
My only question about a man's long hair.... what does that mean in reference to the Nazarite vow in Numbers Chapter 6?
They do answer it eventually... but I figured I'd still start a lane of dialogue....
Two questions about this topic, Joel. Is this an issue you would leave a church over and how would you shepherd a flock of believers who is mostly not going to be with you on this, or is taking one of the other stances that you mention (i.e. MacArthur’s or Wilson’s)?
if a church doesn't submit to its pastoral authority then yeah it's not a true church, so that pastor should leave. That's how you made it sound
@@cosmictreason2242 I am asking this question from the church member’s point of view. If he is of the conviction that Joel and Bnonn are describing here but the eldership of the church is not.
@@elijahgrajkowski2505 Then I don't think it's a reason to leave the church. There would have to be different reasons.
@@cosmictreason2242 why? they aren't shepherding the flock rightly.
@@xxxViceroyxxx you can leave a church if the eldership is disqualified from service, or if you are obstructed from exercising your gifts in building up the Body. Neither of those would be taking place in that case.
Regarding the angels in this passage, I wonder if the Word here is not saying, in essence, that a woman's obedience in this matter of head coverings has a direct effect on how able/empowered/allowed the angels are to operate in the spiritual realm on her behalf.
that's reading too much into it
@@cosmictreason2242 Perhaps, but it's a cryptic phrase, and while I'm not saying that's for sure what it's saying, I think it's an explanation as plausible as any I've heard; even the two here are perplexed by it. I think this phrase falls into the category of "some things hard to understand" as Peter writes.
@@jimboflex6194 It's incorrect because 'because of the angels' is a metonymy (like "white house" is for the presidential administration) referring to the created order. Paul is saying that she should have a symbol of authority on her head in order to properly represent the hierarchical reality of the created order.
@@cosmictreason2242 I see what you're saying, and upon looking again at it, especially in the context of the entire passage, I suspect you're right. Thanks for the correction.
One thing I did want to address though. Around the 57 minute mark, bnonn says we don't see a picture of the Father in scripture. What about the Ancient of Days in Daniel picture??
Every time we 'see' God in Scripture, it's the Son. "No one has seen the father / he who has seen me has seen the Father" . The one who was walking in the garden in the cool of the day - the preincarnate Son. The man who sat with Abraham - preincarnate Son. The man who wrestled all night with Jacob - the preincarnate Son. The man who hid Moses in the cleft of the rock - the preincarnate Son. The man who held his sword out at Joshua - the preincarnate Son. The man who was in the fire with Shadrach, Meschach, and A Bad Negro (as Voddie Baucham jokes) - the preincarnate Son. And this vision, also.
@@cosmictreason2242 so you beleive the ancient of days is God the Son?
John Gill in his commentary mentions that prophesying could mean to sing, among other things.
I promise im not a troll😂, if I recall correctly I believe you said that prayer thought the week is an extension of the Lords day worship. I also believe you said that singing songs of praise is a form of prophecy, Would you mind sharing so Scriptures to support that? Im currently in the Doug Wilson camp on this and although my experience around more “fundamentalist” types of people puts a bad taste in my mouth I want to be open to Gods word and not let people screw that up for me.
I mean im not going to lie I think women not wanting to have kids is a bigger deal as it ties to creation order and their fundamental nature and has huge cultural impact but you have done a great job covering that. But whatever Scripture says on this topic matters to
"you said that singing songs of praise is a form of prophecy,"
What are you doing when singing? Declaring the Words of God. Unless you're singing Bethel which doesn't contain any Biblical theology, I guess. Prophecy is literally speaking the truth of the Bible publicly.
Hello, Pastor Joel, thank you for this beautiful live! I am amazed. We practice headcovering in our congregation in Brazil and are moving to the USA. I'm happy that headcovering is booming in the American reformed community.
Regarding verse 10, I understand that this is a question regarding a heavenly pedagogy in eternity (so to speak). The presence of angels is not merely for our protection or supervision, but they learn of the manifold wisdom of God through the Church, which has received and demonstrated the mysteries of God that were in secret (Ephesians 3:9-10 and 1 Peter 1: 12).
Am I going too far in this interpretation?
Head covering is not booming in America in fact even a group of Mennonites who are normally hard core head covering enthusiasts have separated from this interpretation and no longer wear anything on their heads. We are talking about thousands of people. So not sure where you are getting your news.
I think it helps our credibility to not work so hard at explaining these counter-cultural passages away. I think you nailed it in a previous video when you said that the reason these things are so contentious is because they are so visible... a godly man praying with lifting holy hands (1 Tm 2.8) is a testimony against those who feel uncomfortable. Is it possible to do anything for show? No doubt. Same with a woman praying with a head covering, because it's a testimony against those who are uncomfortable in what that means.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
This is what unbelieving sophistry leads to.
“James went to the store to buy bread.” The passage doesn’t say that James didn’t go to the beach first, does it? It doesn’t say how James travelled. It doesn’t say whether he teleported, flew, drove, walked, or took the subway. ‘Bread’ is sometimes slang for ‘money,’ isn’t it? The name James is a form of the word Jacob. We don’t know what type of store James went to; maybe it was a hardware store. For all we know: This sentence is telling us that Jacob (not James) teleported and vacationed at the beach to get some money from the hardware store. It’s just not clear, so therefore I’m just going to proceed - unless someone can prove without a shadow of a doubt otherwise - that asserting that Jacob didn’t go to get bread, but rather teleported to a hardware store at the beach to obtain money.
@@ericgunter4169 how about you offer a clear counter argument to anything I mentioned? I mean if you can using scripture if not it’s ok not everyone can justify their beliefs and just simply follow what they are told to believe
So many questions. Should men not wear a hat ever? Is a woman’s long hair her covering or does she need an additional one? And if so when is that worn? What kind of covering is adequate? A hat, a short veil and long veil? To be worn anytime she prays privately or only in public. Is what is considered long hair for men considered long hair for women? Or is that too short? Not as easy as you make it out to be. Very difficult Scriptures. I will gladly cover my hair if that is what God wants. It’s just not clear to me.
Exactly- a follow up on practical ways for women to be obedient would be fantastic!
@@TiffanyC11318 for a cheeky idea, one with this printed from the head down to the shoulders: "if you can read this, you can read 1 Corinthians 11"
Right? I was hoping for more insight than observable fact. I would be more led to translate this scripture as Paul revealing a bit of the mystery of why they do head coverings. To me it's clear that God has established his will in order. A woman praying without her head covering would be an example of either rebelliousness to authority or a request for rebellious authority. Moabite women seduced the Israelite men. Jezebel spirit. Whore of Babylon. Nicolatians. Eve deceived, etc. Men are to image the glory of Christ. Women are coequal to men, but are to help the man give glory to Christ, thus not dishonoring man. There's so much more to this.
The passage in 1 Corinthians talks about women head covering while praying and prophesying so I would think men are to uncover at those specific times if they are wearing a hat or something. Being that there is a command to cover at a specific point in time and through understanding the language used (headcovering movement here on RUclips goes into great detail) I believe scripture is clearly talking about a physical covering that is able to be put on and taken off, not the hair. The specifics of what that covering looks like isn’t mentioned so I believe that is where Christian liberty & a cultural aspect comes into play. Hope that little bit may be helpful in some way 😊
For clarity, one can simply look to church history. There are also many RUclips videos where women demonstrate how to wear a head covering. You can also buy head coverings on Amazon. There really shouldn't be that many questions. I'll answer your questions 1) men should not cover their heads in the church, just like the passage says... 2) the hair as the covering doesn't make sense, check out Mike Wingers video on that theory 3) A head covering is used in church just like the passage says... 4) the rest is answered above.
Great episode. I hadn’t thought about the Genesis 6 link to this passage.
Curious though how he can hold to the angels being sons of God and the Sethite theory
... I thought I answered this? I don't see my comment. Anyway, I think he just holds to both happening at the same time
@@cosmictreason2242 YT automatically deletes comments with protected words from flagged accounts.
@@cosmictreason2242 I’m not sure how that can be possible. Can you explain why you mean please?
@@danielwarton5343 didn’t say I agree.
@@danielwarton5343 He made a comment like 'as above, so below,' to indicated his systematic theology behind his current position
Here is a practical question I've been trying to figure out. Should our wives wear head coverings all week long, or only at Church services?
Pretty much my question. I take exception to the cultural practice of taking our hats off for prayer at random times. Either we stop doing that or we start covering the women 24/7
@@cosmictreason2242 You mean like under the Sharia?
@@jeannet7443 I’m just talking about consistency in practice. Whether unbelieving women should be covered would depend on if the interpretation is only for the context of worship or if the context is authority itself
However, if women need to cover 24/7, wouldn’t it be wrong for men to ever wear a hat or covering of any kind? What about winter in Canada? What about construction workers in hard hat zones?
Just trying to look at this consistently.
The Bible states her long hair is given her for a covering. A veil is not needed.
Pastor Joel: Here are some of my thoughts.
In the first place, there is nothing in the passage that requires this or implies that this is ONLY for the worship service. This is reinforced by the transition in verse 18, when Paul says "FIRST of all, when ye come together", which means this is the first point regarding when we gather as the church. We can't go backwards and say since v18 and following is regarding corporate worship, then vv. 1-17 is also about corporate worship - not logical. And the previous verses in Chapter 10 are also not limited to corporate worship (and the original autograph did not have chapter divisions).
Second, if praying and prophesying for a woman is not allowed in corporate worship, this also proves this applies to all areas of life; if this was only for corporate worship, it would be contradicting 1 Tim. 2:12-15.
Third, the ESV has a lot of problems, and this passage is just one of many places where it is wrong - the word is Woman, NOT Wife, and this applies to all women, not just wives. I think you should do a study of the ESV comparing it to the KJV.
Great point about The Lord's Supper being a proclamation, an act of prophecy in a sense.
Very important topic, thanks for your work.
I think Paul would give you the tilted confused puppy face and ask what on earth a "worship service" is.
He wouldn't have considered "worship" to be a weekly town hall from 8-12 one day every week where we bicker about so many details while ignoring the principle.
@@adamwalker2377 Adam - I am quite sure Paul would NOT give whatever that was you noted, but I understand your sentiment. My point was not to define the "worship service", but only to use the term that most understand, and most try to say these verses apply to. I am not sure if your response was to agree or disagree with my comments about the application of head coverings, or to make a separate comment about what people today call a "worship service". If you have a comment or question about what I was noting, I would appreciate hearing it. Thanks.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
* You Should Naturally Know Right from Wrong by Just Looking….
If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to:
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be “uncovered” should mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL should pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Why should the lack of a veil make a praying woman not have a “pleasing appearance” (aka look comely)? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is important so please don’t dismiss it.
Be honest with yourself do YOU really believe that the average person will look at an unveiled, praying woman and naturally think a VEIL is missing or would make her look unpleasing? Are we to assume that Paul expected the average person to have instilled within them the idea that a foreign object is missing from a woman? I have never seen or heard anyone say something like: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head?” after looking at a long-haired, praying woman. To so do would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right that there is an unpleasing appearance. I think I can say with some assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a short-haired woman from behind especially if we are not sure if the person was male or female. It seems like a natural reaction especially when we were young.
Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong: whether it be OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (a.k.a. short hair) while praying or OBSERVING a man having long hair.
In addition, by using the word “NATURE” one can’t even use the excuse that perhaps they were expecting only Christians to see something different. Clearly, if “nature” teaches us that something looks off then it must include all of mankind as nature teaches all of us both Christian and non-Christian.
I would like to also add that these verses are NOT jumping from the discussion of a “veil” in verse 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in verse 14 like some would like to argue because you will note that verse 15 refers again to the woman which FLAT-OUT STATES the “covering” is to mean “long hair.” Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses are referring to hair length. By this, we can understand verse 4 which states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered as I previously mentioned.
I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due to the false interpretation that the verse is exclusive to two conditions instead of seeing them as two examples. As mentioned before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR.
A misunderstanding of the explanation of verse 6.
Some have repeatedly told me that my explanation of verse 6 doesn’t make sense because as one person put it in a comment in a RUclips video:
“If a woman doesn’t have long hair let her cut her hair? That just doesn’t make sense.”
In other words, they are under the impression that one is confused when explaining verse 6 because why would it ask to cut the woman’s hair if it was supposedly already cut? Therefore, this explanation does not make sense as it seems to be repetitive, but this is not being understood correctly. As said before not being covered (aka uncovered) means having short hair but that does not mean that it cannot be cut shorter or shaved off. I have short hair, but neither is it a buzz cut or shaved off bald. Therefore, even though I have short hair it doesn’t mean that it cannot be cut even shorter or shaved bald. So now it is important to understand what shorn and shaven mean. The word “shorn” is the same word used when you shear sheep. A stubble is left behind. And shaven implies using a razor which implies that all the hair would be taken off. Note that the word “shorn” is repeated alongside the word “shaven” in the KJV as if to confirm and clarify that they are referring to extremely short hair that implies seeing the scalp. A quick look at any dictionary will show that these words are synonymous. Therefore, by mentioning these words side by side Paul would seem to be emphasizing the fact that women with short hair may as well be made bald or almost bald.
It would also be very difficult to claim that Paul was speaking metaphorically as hair seems to be the main theme here and the removal thereof repeatedly. Why would he repeat the words shaved or shorn unless he was being literal? I think most of us can agree that having short hair (like in a typical male haircut) is NOT the same as having their hair shorn or shaven aka bald. Therefore, a woman being “uncovered” simply means that she has short hair and that in doing so she might as well shave the REST of her hair off. It’s not that complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
Unfortunately, people tend to get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seem like some kind of headwear but do not consider all the verses that show that “covering” means long hair and that “uncovered” means short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can we conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet, or veil?
I reiterate, how can one have logical judgments in the example I gave that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil one would automatically assume that there is a foreign object missing? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, I implore everyone to set aside any bias and explain to themselves 1st Corinthians 11:13 thoroughly, but I suspect most people will simply ignore it. This, therefore, makes the whole veil interpretation wrong, that it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
Where can I learn more about the woman's covering relating to the glory covering of God in the OT?
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with the subject of head coverings.)
A women's long hair is her 'covering'.
My thoughts: 7 minute read
another's: also 7 minutes
Reply if desired.
There was no Old Testament law requiring women to
wear a physical head covering.
You won't find anything about this in the OT. It simply does not exist. Sorry.
Could you clarify why you believe women singing in church is still considered “being silent” according to 1 Cor 14?
She is not to teach or ask questions but is to remain silent in that sense. Singing hymns is prophesying and she should be covered for that.
Can anyone help me understand what Bnonn meant when discussing Genesis 6 and saying that the Sons of God mentioned there were angels and "also Sethites?" Is he claiming that Adam's son Seth fathered angels?
I think he's saying that he agrees with both interpretations of the passage. The two main ones are that they are fallen angels, and that they are the godly line from Seth intermarrying with the ungodly women of the line of Cain. As far as I can tell, Bnonn means that he thinks both of those things were happening
@@cosmictreason2242 yeah, that's how it sounded to me too. My understanding, and that of everyone I have ever discussed this with, see these 2 interpretations as mutually exclusive (if one is true the other cannot be). In fact I think the primary motivation for the development of the Sethite hypothesis was the denial of angelic involvement.
@@ArchDLuxe I think bnonn is saying he’s not confident in one or the other. I am more convinced of sethites from a Biblical theology standpoint; the best argument for the angels is the usage of the phrase sons of god being angels in every other usage, although those are few usages. Angels can’t create, so there’s a fundamental question of how they would fashion bodies for themselves. And if it does mean angels, it could be talking about demonic possession and not unnatural relationships. This could be how you get “both.”
@@cosmictreason2242 thanks for your insight. I find the angelic explanation to have more textual support, and I guess I always assumed that angelic beings had the innate ability to take corporeal form. The angels accompanying God in Gen. 18 were said to be men implying they had bodies. While I don't deny these bodies could have been a special dispensation from God on this occasion, I don't see that the text even pushes us in that direction.
@@ArchDLuxe The Sethite view is the most Biblically consistent. I would like to share a strong argument FOR the angelic interpretation as evidence for my case: ruclips.net/video/qKtHwc3mMY8/видео.html . Here Dr. Peter Gentry explains quite convincingly that the Nephilim are NOT the offspring of the Sons of God and the Daughters of Men, but are mentioned in the same context in order to make the assertion that they were there BEFORE the SoG+DoM got together, so they couldn't be a result of that. The word study argument Gentry gives is that every case where SoG is used in the OT, it means an angelic being. However, this list is very short, and I would also propose that in none of the other cases is SoG used to refer to demons, explicitly, so concluding that it must be angels is slightly circular, since we don't see any evidence to conclude that demons are considered "sons of God." To be a SoG, whether angel or man, one would have to be in a right relationship, which is to say, not going to hell. In my view, the reason why things go wrong in Genesis is that believers began to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, resulting in succeeding generations abandoning the faith until the whole world was in unbelief. The context of Genesis 1-6 fits. It begins with 100% believers. Then when conflict arises between the believers and unbelievers, (Cain and Abel), the narrative focuses on the offspring of each, and shows how they were different in character. Seth's line includes a man so loved by God that he wasn't permitted to die naturally, Cain's line includes polygamy and false religion and boastful murder. Then the narrative transitions SEAMLESSLY into explaining that when the SoG+DoM got together, it corrupted the earth until at the end there was only Noah's family left that was faithful. The overarching scope of the story is that faith mixed with unbelief leads to apostasy of one's descendants. The SoG did not themselves fall, but their poor choices of whom to marry doomed their children or grandchildren to walk away from the faith of Adam. And in a broader context of God's preservation of the messianic line, you can see this focus on rescuing the righteous remnant from annihilation repeatedly:
• he saves Adam and Eve from an immediate judgment, deferring the sentence until 930 years later, in order that they would bear children
• he saves Noah from a world so filled with violence that the line of the messiah was in danger of being snuffed out in the next generation or two
• he intervenes to protect the seed once again by spreading humanity out from Babel
• then again by calling Abraham out of a polytheistic society
• then again by Joseph's dreams resulting in protecting Jacob's family from dying of famine
• then again by using Moses to bring the seed out of bondage
over and over again, God intervenes to make sure that there will be an unbroken lineage of REGENERATE fathers and sons from Adam all the way to Jesus. The overarching MOTIVE for the Flood was to keep that line from being corrupted with faithlessness or extinguished by genocide or random acts of murder, as indicated by the context of the whole chapter.
The text does not require that the nephilim are giants, but even if they were, gigantism is genetic, and is demonstrated in nearly every animal kind on earth. They lost their genes for large size over time, and it's not a strange thing to think that humans also did. But the context better suits the interpretation of the nephilim being "larger than life" individuals with political power or cultural influence. The interjection about "they were in the earth before and after the SoG+DoM got together" is intended to argue that the great kings of that time period were not in fact demi-gods, or divine in any way.
We also see no proof that angels have the power to create, like whole human bodies. Demons in the gospels possess already living things. Why would their manner of behavior be different if God had not changed what they could do? Sending a flood would not stop angels from being able to make new bodies for themselves to do it all again, if that's what they had done -- but it would wipe out the unbelievers and start over again with 100% faithfulness on earth, fitting my scheme above.
Is that a hardline halo?
One thing I noticed that was not discuss at all is, what would define as head covering, especially when taking into consideration only leaving God's glory on display? Should women cover all their hair, or is a partial covering still appropriate?
I have been wondering this as well. I usually wear a hat, but that doesn’t actually cover much of my hair (except when I put it up under the hat sometimes). So is it purely about having a symbol of authority? Or is it important to physically obscure the glory (the hair) from sight?
i think its a reasonable observation that wearing a partial covering inglorifies much the same as a full covering. the glory is being obscured @@kaylar3197
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
yo my man wrote a 5000 word essay responding to a 2 year old comment on a video with 300 views @@FA-God-s-Words-Matter
@@xxxViceroyxxx Not sure where you are getting a 2 year old comment or 300 views, when its a 1 yr old comment and the video has over 14 thousand views. LOL
So, to be clear, and i haven't finished the episode yet, but may i assume you guys do not agree with Mike Heiser's view of this text?
So, if it's a SIN for a woman to have her head uncovered because of the angels, it's not a matter of "conviction" or "understanding". I'm curious. Maybe you should do a part 2 of this to explain addressing this sin problem mainly due to ignorance in the church. This is really eye opening
Yes, because I have yet to have this conversation with a pastor who agrees. I've always been told that this is cultural, it's our hair or wedding rings etc., yet with either of those it doesn't work for the man's part in it. Secondly, there are so many things going on in the spiritual realm that God simply isn't obligated to explain. We are to just obey. It is our own rebellion that we don't. I've also found that men don't want women covering, because it reminds them of their responsibility and it's frankly just easier for many men to let their wives lead because they prefer the path of least resistance. When their wife puts a covering on to approach the Lord, it's a reminder of his role. You might be surprised how many men have criticized me for covering!
@@anniemorris9632 quite interesting
@@anniemorris9632 Everyone who says it's cultural has grown up since the 60s when marxist feminism became the prevailing cultural tailwind. So they're influenced by feminist culture in their interpretation of the text, and it takes effort to get out of our own interpretive framework.
I bet the men who criticize are subconsciously afraid of conflict with their wife. I'm not afraid of it. I'm single, though. I have the privilege of not engaging with someone who isn't submissive. Perhaps that's part of what Paul is thinking of when he says that singles can be devoted to the Lord with undivided interests -- I can figure out what my theological convictions are without fear of a quarrelsome wife.
@@cosmictreason2242 you should find a submissive wife though. I encourage you to ask God for, and seek a wife who covers her glory in the assembly. And put a ring on that finger! And be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it! Make disciples of your children and take back what the enemy has stolen
A woman in church without her head covered is sinning, but she doesn’t know it?
My church would say the same of you because of your wedding band.
At the end of the day we’re all trusting some man’s understanding of Scripture.
I feel like you and Brian Sauve would be friends (if you're not already) --- you should get him on your show with his wife Lexy! Also, would you mind sharing what your opinion is of an acceptable covering? Some women wear thick handbands, others insist on an actual veil, others a hat...
Just finished talking to Brian right before reading your comment. He’s coming on the show soon!
No strong opinion on the type of covering.
@@RightResponseMinistries Awesome!
I’m familiar with them and like them a lot! Do they affirm the headcovering practice? I haven’t heard or seen one way or the other.
@@taylorwene4276 yes. Brian and I both hold to coverings.
@@taylorwene4276 they do! They have their daughters wear head coverings as well
Thanks for this Bible study on a difficult passage. The arguments that women should wear head coverings an the Lord's Day worship services was founded more on Bible passages with similar themes to 1 Cor 11:2-16 than other arguments I've heard, saying head coverings were only for the culture and time period when Paul wrote 1 Cor. I've just started looking at "The Case For Christian Head Covering: A Guided Study of 1 Corinthians 11" by "The Head Covering Movement."
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.)
Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
-excerpt John 12
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
My thoughts: post length 7 minutes
Reply for post if desired. It includes scriptures and
commentary.
@@davidrogers3920 Ok, so your mind is made up?
Or still open to new ideas?
@@davidrogers3920
Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
-NASB version
If the above scripture means a turban, for example, why would God require the priests to
wear turbans? Paul certainly would have known about this and maybe seen it.
You shall speak to all the skillful people whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may serve as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of checkered work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to Me.
-excerpt Exodus 28
Jesus prayed with something on His head while on the cross. A crown of thorns.
And they dressed Him in purple, and after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; and they began saluting Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!”
-excerpt Mark 15
And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” And having said this, He died.
-excerpt Luke 23
*******************************************
At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we?
“Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much.
-excerpt Luke 7
Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone...
-excerpt John 12
*************
It can only mean the hair is the covering, as the NASB states here:
Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering.
************
No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering.
Therefore no Old Testament reference available.
1 Corinthians 11 starts with this:
...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you...
Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered...
So, there was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. There was no time to establish a tradition of a fabric covering. There was no way to "hold firmly to the traditions" because you can't start a 'tradition' in a period of time that is just a few years.
************
If the covering was a physical covering, then hair length is
irrelevant. No one would know if the woman had long hair
or no hair.
************
Also, if a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before
she can communicate with God, that would make the fabric covering
an idol. But one could also say it was a talisman I suppose, since a
talisman could be an article of clothing.
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?
@@davidrogers3920
(originally posted by FA)
* Where the problem usually begins… (I)
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil.
A typical question from those who are against hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot.
So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off.
Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being shaven than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Think about it.
* Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II)
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered."
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering."
If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic.
* You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III)
If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to:
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ”
I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
@@user-iz8np3vv4i A fantastic and logical essay on this subject. I only hope more people read this.
I'm excited to watch this episode!I just started covering again. Th coverings I use serve two purposes, it works as a headband or everyday use. Or it can be expanded out to use as a full covering. Blessings.❤️
Ok I watched this whole thing to hear about verse 15…I get what you’re saying and I agree, however, if the long hair isn’t actually a covering and the woman must still wear a covering…why in the world is this sentence there??? There must be a reason.
they address one interpretation at the end. That Paul is making a side note and not continuing his thought. The most common interpretation throughout history has been "the hair is given because the head must be covered; it can therefore not be inappropriate to cover it further."
Genesis 6 absolutely goes with the flow ( because of the angels) ! That's why Paul speaks of Demons and Idols in the context on the Lord's Table/Altar (1 Corinthians 10).
I suppose if one were to just concentrate on a couple of words within the verses one could mistake Giants to mean tall men. Moreso when one tries to add the idea that the Sons of God to mean angels and that there was some hybrid of men and angels that had caused tall men to be born aka giants. But the surrounding verses give a different conclusion to this idea.
Genesis 6 is talking about men not angels. It doesn’t say angels. If you think that the sons of God were angels then you are not considering Hebrews 1 which states:
For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father " ? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son" ? Meaning he never said that any of the angels were his sons so that kills your theory.
As for the verses in Genesis 6 it states in the first verse that MEN began to multiply and that they had fair-looking daughters in verse two, of which were noticed by the sons of God. Given that believers or followers of God are also described as sons we can likely assume that they are referring to those who chose to follow God. Another clue is that they took from these women, WIVES. So let’s paint a picture for a moment if they were angels. To take someone to wife must mean that they LIVED in a matrimonial household. If it were a one-night stand I think it would have said so. Therefore, are we to imagine that certain angels with the powers they possess married human women who then had to plow the field, tend the animals, raise the children, etc? Sounds very unlikely. Verse 3 already shows something of God’s displeasure limiting their time on earth and that his spirit won’t always strive with man it could be because the sons of God should have chosen from their own rank or group as opposed to those who are the daughters of men. But that of course is debatable. Verse 4 is where we read about giants but if we read the rest of the verse it keeps describing these men as those who “BECAME mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Meaning it took time for them to become legends or mighty or renowned. Since we all know that we can use the words to describe someone as renowned or great by using the word “giant” (e.g. “he was a giant among men”) it would seem to fit perfectly with the rest of the words making this same description. God continues to reveal his displeasure in that men are wicked all the time in verse 5 and states he repented making man in verses 6 and 7.
So it would seem God was unhappy with MEN when they were choosing their wives and after more men were born from this union. But if there were male angels taking women as wives then shouldn’t they and only the women be punished and not all men? Therefore the logical conclusion is that they are referring to certain men regarded as the sons of God and that the word giants can and does have another meaning.
The henna is referred to as covering too, hedge of protein and illustrate the blood of Jesus. Kopher. Solomon says Jesus smelled like henna flowers. But kopher is a covering like the covering of tabernacle too.
Is it possible that a woman with long hair still needs a covering, because her long hair is HER GLORY and when worshipping the Lord, it’s about HIS GLORY? So the extra covering is covering her glory to focus on his glory. So if she won’t wear the covering; it’s better to shave off her hair to remove her Glory before the Lord? I’ve read through these verses many times, and like an Arminian does with election, I grit my teeth and keep on reading because I’ve heard too many men say it was for that place at that time like JMac says in his study notes. So these videos have opened my eyes. But I’m new to this, so what I said above May make no sense and be a stupid statement.
Ok. This was answered at the very end. Sorry I typed this prior to finishing the video.
But it’s very good! I love that you came to the same conclusion on your own. It is a more succinct summary of the position than any that Joel or Bnonn gave. lol
Question- Then why did the male priests in the old testament wear bonnets?
You are comparing laws governing OT priests (Jewish) vs Gentile NT church. You must remember context, who the person speaking was and the audience. I hope that makes sense.
@@TheIndecisiveWigWearerTrue, I just wonder, if the reason for women wearing a head covering has to do with creation and the woman being the glory of the man, headship, etc....hasn't it been that way since the beginning? If the covering really is separate from the hair, wouldn't it have always been right for the man to be uncovered and the woman covered?
good question. @@rosevalley9649
1Cor1:29 no flesh shall glory in the presence of God. This is symbolism of giving glory to God in the gathering of saints when remembering the Lord 1Cor11:20-28, just like the cup and the bread are symbols of Christ.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter I really appreciate your thoughts and indepth response. Here are few counter points for your consideration.
If it is speaking of hair length than one must beg the question how long and how short?
Many Anabaptist often argue the similar points you brought out. Should it be a veil, bonnet, hat, shaw and so on.
I am convinced of the text that neither of these positions are what is being taught.
The letter is written to a collected body of believers not individuals. Paul starts out in chpt 1:29 "no first shall glory in His presence". He does a lot of teaching for the next ten chapters on there faults and offers corrections and encouragement. In chapter 10:14-17 he is setting the stage for communion (the lord's supper). Chapter 11:1-16 Paul teaches the order and conduct in the saints ought to conduct themselves. Vs 1 keep the ordinances I delivered to you (God is a God of order not confusion). Notice The word for covering in the greekStrong's Number - G2619
Greek: κατακαλύπτω
Transliteration: katakaluptō
Pronunciation: kat-ak-al-oop'-to
Definition: From G2596 and G2572; to cover wholly that is veil: - cover hide.
This Greek word is used five times in this section either speaking of covering or not covering.
So what about vs 16? This is a completely different Greek word;
Strong's Number - G4018
Greek: περιβόλαιον
Transliteration: peribolaion
Pronunciation: per-ib-ol'-ah-yon
Definition: Neuter of a presumed derivative of G4016; something thrown around one that is a mantle veil: - covering vesture.
Another word in scripture to describe mantle is adornment.
The covering mentioned in vs ten is a symbol not hair.
Let's continue in the chapter 11:17-34. Paul is giving continued instructions on the lord's supper (communion). Vs 20 when you come together in one place. Note that they were coming together as a body of believers ( they were in err but Paul corrected) 23-26 take the bread and wine "in remembrance of Me". These are symbols not literally blood and body.
Paul then goes on to warn them if they partake in an unworthy manner there will be judgement.
The point is this, we don't get to decide how to come before God in remembrance of him. He decides not us. There are 4 symbols mentioned in the new covenant, baptism, head covering, bread, wine.
Baptism is the for individual to show forth his faith in baptism by identifying himself with Christ.
The bread, wine and head covering are symbols for the ekklesia to show forth there faith in Christ by giving Him the glory.
I'm assuming you understand the symbolism of the bread and wine so I'll stick to the covering.
The woman is the glory of the man vs7 and the woman's hair is her glory vs15. Man is the glory of God vs7. Man is given the responsibility to audibly pray and prophecy uncovered. This is how he gives glory to God. The woman is to pray and prophecy in silence covered to give God glory.
When coming together to the lord's supper, if a man's wife be uncovered, it is as if he is bringing his glory before the Lord (1Cor1:29) and it's as if she is bringing her own glory before the Lord ( it's a shame vs5).
This entire section is about giving Him glory (remembering the Lord in communion) in the order and instructions He gave us.
In my opinion the type of covering isn't mentioned because it doesn't matter just like it doesn't matter what type of wine or bread is used. They are symbols to be used for a specific purpose and that is to remember the Lord.
Some think a covering should be worn all the time this is not supported by scripture nor can it be applied at all times and all places. Thus making this idea foolish. I've asked some friends of mine that practice this type of teaching so do you wear winter hats and of course they have no response.
There is a lot more than can be discussed if you wish. I would be willing to face time or phone if your interested. I personally enjoy deeper studies into the scriptures with brothers in Christ.
1Cor10:31
Blessings my friend
What if our husbands dont want us to cover?
"modern Christians are just very sheltered". I laughed.
I think of it this way - If I went to enter a mosque and they said "Cover your head" and I replied that my long hair is my covering, they certainly wouldn't let me in. If the hair was the covering, why were all the early Christian women covering their hair to pray? And all of them right through history until the 60s? They clearly understood that a cloth covering the head IS required. Also, since my hair is my glory, surely it is only correct to cover it in praying and prophesying, as during those times only the glory of the Lord is to be present, it is not to be detracted from by me showing my glory on display. Isn't this just common sense?
your second sentence is really good logic
* Going Outside the Scope of the Scriptures & so called “Christian History” ….
Proponents of the head covering often point towards church history meaning that there is “historical evidence” within the church (whatever church that may be) that this doctrine was applied for a very long time. Many proponents insist that women had been wearing a head covering for centuries and that only recently (within the 1900s) did women begin to reject the idea, usually because of an introduction of some evil like the feminist movement as though this somehow supports or gives credence to their false interpretation.
They never consider the fact that about that time more people were getting the word of God into their hands and as a result the possibility that they discovered that the old interpretations, held by many of these contradicting churches, were false. As an example, I recall when I was Catholic, I was shocked when I found the Bible to be contrary to Catholic dogmas. And they claim to have had the true word of God for centuries! It is logical to think that as more people read the Scriptures with their own eyes, they would naturally discover many false doctrines pushed by many sects and even within their own church. So, one cannot just assume that one specific movement or event caused many to reject this or any other doctrine.
Still, many veil promoters will be bold to claim that no Christian or Christian group ever thought that the covering was long hair and not a veil. That such an idea only existed within the last few years. This seems to be a very narrow-minded way to think that no one ever thought that long hair was the covering for over two thousand years. Yet they will declare it as though it were a proven fact but when confronted no one that I have spoken to has been able to logically describe HOW they came to this conclusion with proof. Most people tend to make outlandish claims but never do research to prove these claims.
Another argument is the fact that certain women wore veils, bonnets, or hats in the past is by no means evidence of any kind. One cannot prove that women (in general, not just Christians) who covered their heads in the past did it because they were supposedly following a “Christian” rule. If one must resort to going outside the scope of the scriptures to prove their point, then isn’t it possible that their biblical evidence was likely very thin, to begin with? They often add that many ancient pictures or paintings, whether they be religious or not, show women wearing some kind of physical head covering. But what people did in the past is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches; plus, people wore headwear for all sorts of reasons, and it doesn’t mean that they were abiding by what they interpret the Scripture to mean. The idea (if it can be proven) that more women wore fewer hats or veils today than in the past is not a sign of anything, whether they be Christian or not. It doesn’t prove people were breaking any so-called “biblical” rule if you first don’t prove that there was a rule to break to begin with!
Let me give you a couple of examples that eliminate this logic: The fact that people believed in using CRUCIFIXES, STATUES, RELIGIOUS PAINTINGS, or performed INFANT BAPTISMS or any other “religious” work for CENTURIES does not mean that we ought to accept them. The long time practice of a questionable doctrine is NOT evidence. It should go without saying that these examples are either not in the Bible or in contrast with scripture. False doctrines have been around for centuries; therefore, how can anyone use paintings, photos, or even post-biblical writings to prove their interpretation of Scripture to be correct? All it shows (like crucifixes, statues, and infant baptisms) is that people can be wrong for a very long period. The Bible even mentions the long time practice of temple construction but even though God allowed it ti happen he was NOT in agreement with it as one can easily see God’s disdain of the practice. (Read Acts 7:47-51). The New Testament already mentions several instances where people were misinterpreting the Scriptures and teaching false doctrines. So let’s not act like it would be hard to believe that splinter groups formed and followed their OWN interpretations of which could have spread to other denominations.
Even with biblical facts people will continue to find it hard to believe that the people could be wrong for so long. The thing that I find most interesting is when they throw around the word “church” as if one should KNOW what they mean. The first logical response should be ‘Which church are you referring to? Catholic? Protestant? Anabaptist?’ All of which oppose each other by the way. Who exactly is being referring to when they say “church?” Most of the time people are sidelined by this because they haven’t made any real effort to know what they mean by “church.” And if they start to add certain churches that contradict scripture. I would say, ‘Why are putting your trust in them?’ Then I would explain all the scriptural reasons why they shouldn’t.
Churches that follow a certain doctrine for an extended length of time are not proof of anything unless it stands firm within the scriptures. Our faith should be based on rock-solid verses, not because some churches are following similar beliefs which can be wrong, or the flimsy writings or etchings of man. Therefore, what the people did, however long ago, does not prove that what they practiced was biblically sound.
First why would you care to enter a mosque if you are a Christian? Why should a Christian care if a Muslim wouldn't let you in because of THEIR beliefs. You question why ALL the early Christian women covering their hair to pray? Um you speak like everyone knows this and as if not one single Christian did not do this. Where are you getting your information? Also why are you caring about what people did AFTER the Bible was written. After the bible people had all sorts of false doctrines that lasted for centuries. Your explanation is by no means proof. There is no word like "cloth" to come to this conclusion. Paul was was not giving us two conditions when to cover he was giving two examples in that anytime you do anything holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying a woman should have her head covered in long hair.
What about all the women today who have short hair then?@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter
@@SarahlabyrinthLHC I would say that a woman who has short hair by choice and claim to be Christian should reconsider, based on scripture, to allow their hair to grow out. If it is not by choice like say a genetic defect or accident or illness then there is no expectation of the woman to grow her hair out if they cannot.
The Catholic and Orthodox churches have had this figured out and have implemented this for 2000 years. It’s not complicated.
The following is a great essay from a commenter named "FA-God's words matter":
* Going Outside the Scope of the Scriptures & so called “Christian History” ….
Proponents of the head covering often point towards church history meaning that there is “historical evidence” within the church (whatever church that may be) that this doctrine was applied for a very long time. Many proponents insist that women had been wearing a head covering for centuries and that only recently (within the 1900s) did women begin to reject the idea, usually because of an introduction of some evil like the feminist movement as though this somehow supports or gives credence to their false interpretation.
They never consider the fact that about that time more people were getting the word of God into their hands and as a result the possibility that they discovered that the old interpretations, held by many of these contradicting churches, were false. As an example, I recall when I was Catholic, I was shocked when I found the Bible to be contrary to Catholic dogmas. And they claim to have had the true word of God for centuries! It is logical to think that as more people read the Scriptures with their own eyes, they would naturally discover many false doctrines pushed by many sects and even within their own church. So, one cannot just assume that one specific movement or event caused many to reject this or any other doctrine.
Still, many veil promoters will be bold to claim that no Christian or Christian group ever thought that the covering was long hair and not a veil. That such an idea only existed within the last few years. This seems to be a very narrow-minded way to think that no one ever thought that long hair was the covering for over two thousand years. Yet they will declare it as though it were a proven fact but when confronted no one that I have spoken to has been able to logically describe HOW they came to this conclusion with proof. Most people tend to make outlandish claims but never do research to prove these claims.
Another argument is the fact that certain women wore veils, bonnets, or hats in the past is by no means evidence of any kind. One cannot prove that women (in general, not just Christians) who covered their heads in the past did it because they were supposedly following a “Christian” rule. If one must resort to going outside the scope of the scriptures to prove their point, then isn’t it possible that their biblical evidence was likely very thin, to begin with? They often add that many ancient pictures or paintings, whether they be religious or not, show women wearing some kind of physical head covering. But what people did in the past is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches; plus, people wore headwear for all sorts of reasons, and it doesn’t mean that they were abiding by what they interpret the Scripture to mean. The idea (if it can be proven) that more women wore fewer hats or veils today than in the past is not a sign of anything, whether they be Christian or not. It doesn’t prove people were breaking any so-called “biblical” rule if you first don’t prove that there was a rule to break to begin with!
Let me give you a couple of examples that eliminate this logic: The fact that people believed in using CRUCIFIXES, STATUES, RELIGIOUS PAINTINGS, or performed INFANT BAPTISMS or any other “religious” work for CENTURIES does not mean that we ought to accept them. The long time practice of a questionable doctrine is NOT evidence. It should go without saying that these examples are either not in the Bible or in contrast with scripture. False doctrines have been around for centuries; therefore, how can anyone use paintings, photos, or even post-biblical writings to prove their interpretation of Scripture to be correct? All it shows (like crucifixes, statues, and infant baptisms) is that people can be wrong for a very long period. The Bible even mentions the long time practice of temple construction but even though God allowed it ti happen he was NOT in agreement with it as one can easily see God’s disdain of the practice. (Read Acts 7:47-51). The New Testament already mentions several instances where people were misinterpreting the Scriptures and teaching false doctrines. So let’s not act like it would be hard to believe that splinter groups formed and followed their OWN interpretations of which could have spread to other denominations.
Even with biblical facts people will continue to find it hard to believe that the people could be wrong for so long. The thing that I find most interesting is when they throw around the word “church” as if one should KNOW what they mean. The first logical response should be ‘Which church are you referring to? Catholic? Protestant? Anabaptist?’ All of which oppose each other by the way. Who exactly is being referring to when they say “church?” Most of the time people are sidelined by this because they haven’t made any real effort to know what they mean by “church.” And if they start to add certain churches that contradict scripture. I would say, ‘Why are putting your trust in them?’ Then I would explain all the scriptural reasons why they shouldn’t.
Churches that follow a certain doctrine for an extended length of time are not proof of anything unless it stands firm within the scriptures. Our faith should be based on rock-solid verses, not because some churches are following similar beliefs which can be wrong, or the flimsy writings or etchings of man. Therefore, what the people did, however long ago, does not prove that what they practiced was biblically sound.
@@JohnYoder-vi1gj. I really have a bad feeling that rejecting most practices that early Christians developed and passed along, admittedly following mostly St. Paul’s letters, not necessarily Christ’s, is beneficial or more holy. Early Christian women covered their heads based on 1st Corinthians 11 and men DO NOT cover their heads based on the same verses. If you are going to ignore these verses, then, if you are a gentleman, wear a hat to church. Would you?
I see nothing wrong with religious art or infant baptism. But why are you arguing against Catholic practices? Christians of ALL DENOMINATIONS have seen 1st Corinthians 11 as denoting head covering for women and uncovered heads for men. By ignoring this tradition, you miss the beautiful meaning of men representing Christ at services and women representing the Bride of Christ.
@@ohthankg-dforthebourgeoisi9800 Well you may have a bad feeling about that but it is a blessing to those of us who do not follow after men’s interpretations of God’s Holy words. Rejecting false practices that early Christians thought were right when they weren’t is something that needs to be done and thanks to God that now that we have His Word in our hands we can finally recognize the false teachings like those taught in the Catholic Church. If you recall the Catholic church did not want people to have the word of God in their hands. Many were incarcerated or abused or threatened by the Catholic church.
It is irrelevant if “Early Christian women covered their heads” based on their MISINTERPRETATION of 1st Corinthians 11.
One should not ignore these verses but neither should one BLINDLY accept that THEIR or YOUR interpretation is correct. I follow these verses faithfully I just follow them the way you think one should.
If these verses have nothing to do with veils or hats then whether one is a gentleman or not wearing a hat to a church or any place should matter. Plus why are you focusing on the IDEA of church? Where do you see church anywhere in 1st Corinthians 11. So not only are you getting the idea of covering wrong to mean a veil when Paul was referring to hair now you are trying to insert the idea of churchianity.
You say you see nothing wrong with religious art or infant baptism, that’s because you don’t care about the truth for you pretty much anything goes. You don’t care that when the people went to John the Baptist it says they came to be baptized they came repenting, an infant cannot do that. Then you ask why am I arguing against Catholic practices? Because they pretty much started this misinterpreted idea of veils. Not to mention the false doctrines of purgatory, Mary worship, works for salvation, the belief in Popes and that they are infallible. The fact that they start “holy wars” and burned people at the stake. My gosh are you so blind that you can’t see the evil that this one religion has caused the whole world? Don’t you ever pick up a book to read about all the atrocities that they have done?
You need to come out of this religious life you are living and come to know the real Christ and the fake one made of stone or wood. Repent before it is too late.
@@ohthankg-dforthebourgeoisi9800 Well you may have a bad feeling about that but it is a blessing to those of us who do not follow after men’s interpretations of God’s Holy words. Rejecting false practices that early Christians thought were right when they weren’t is something that needs to be done and thanks to God that now that we have His Word in our hands we can finally r3ecognize the false teachings like those taught in the Catholic Church. If you recall the Catholic church did not want people to have the word of God in their hands. Many were incarcerated or abused or threatened by the Catholic church.
It is irrelevant if “Early Christian women covered their heads” based on their MISINTERPRETATION of 1st Corinthians 11.
One should not ignore these verses but neither should one BLINDLY accept that THEIR or YOUR interpretation is correct. I follow these verses faithfully I just don't follow them the way you think one should.
If these verses have nothing to do with veils or hats then whether one is a gentleman or not wearing a hat to a church or any place should NOT matter. Plus why are you focusing on the IDEA of church? Where do you see church anywhere in 1st Corinthians 11. So not only are you getting the idea of covering wrong to mean a veil when Paul was referring to hair now you are trying to insert the idea of churchianity.
You say you see nothing wrong with religious art or infant baptism, that’s because you don’t care about the truth for you pretty much anything goes. You don’t care that when the people went to John the Baptist it says they came to be baptized they came repenting, an infant cannot do that. Then you ask why am I arguing against Catholic practices? Because they pretty much started this misinterpreted idea of veils. Not to mention the false doctrines of purgatory, Mary worship, works for salvation, the belief in Popes and that they are infallible. The fact that they started “holy wars” and burned people at the stake. My gosh are you so blind that you can’t see the evil that this one religion has caused the whole world? Don’t you ever pick up a book to read about all the atrocities that they have done?
You need to come out of this religious life you are living and come to know the real Christ and the fake one made of stone or wood. Repent before it is too late.
@@ohthankg-dforthebourgeoisi9800 Well you may have a bad feeling about that but it is a blessing to those of us who do not follow after men’s interpretations of God’s Holy words. Rejecting false practices that early Christians thought were right when they weren’t is something that needs to be done and thanks to God that now that we have His Word in our hands we can finally r3ecognize the false teachings like those taught in the RCC. If you recall the RCC did not want people to have the word of God in their hands. Many were incarcerated or abused or threatened by the RCC church.
It is irrelevant if “Early Christian women covered their heads” based on their MISINTERPRETATION of 1st Corinthians 11.
One should not ignore these verses but neither should one BLINDLY accept that THEIR or YOUR interpretation is correct. I follow these verses faithfully I just don't follow them the way you think one should.
If these verses have nothing to do with veils or hats then whether one is a gentleman or not wearing a hat to a ch*rch or any place should NOT matter. Plus why are you focusing on the IDEA of ch*rch? Where do you see ch*rch anywhere in 1st Corinthians 11. So not only are you getting the idea of covering wrong to mean a veil when Paul was referring to hair now you are trying to insert the idea of ch*rchianity.
I ride a motorcycle and of course wear a helmet. Does me talking to God with my helmet on bring dishonor upon me?
No cause you're not participating in corporate worship when driving your motorcycle
@@cosmictreason2242 if that's the case, then women praying at home, or teaching Bible to their children need not cover, which brings question to when the angels are/are not in view here. I believe there are times of God's grace that cover these things, like praying with your helmet on, when in any other circumstance you would pray uncovered. Additionally, if we read through 1st Corinthians as an entire letter, Paul covers all sorts of topics that while take place outside of the church (marriage, taking each other to court, immorality, etc) they certainly affect the church. So yes, while this is including corporate worship, it also includes outside of it, anytime any of us are approaching the Lord.
@@anniemorris9632 the pivot of 1cor11 is around corporate worship, however, and not the angels. It parallels all the times that a woman is to be silent and not have authority over a man. This doesn’t apply in private or with instructing your own children, but would cover family worship, and women’s Bible study
@@cosmictreason2242 I believe that it could also apply in private prayer or teaching, better to err on the side of caution than to be wrong.
@@anniemorris9632 that's a fine rule, but it leaves the question open of whether it actually does apply there. I am convinced that 'prayer and prophecy' is a synecdoche (like 'lock-stock-and-barrel' meaning 'everything' or 'heaven and earth' meaning 'the universe') referring to corporate worship, but not limited to the sunday gathering, since there is no actual limitation to the number of days of the week where corporate worship may take place. In fact, we're used to referring to the event we have with the pastor's preaching, communion etc as 'the corporate worship' but I'm not using the phrase that way, here.
This is in no way intended as a repudiation of this video. When my wife was not yet a believer, she often wore a head covering as a tool against "bad spirits." She wore the head covering all the time as a believer until 8 years ago. She dropped it in response to people constantly identifying her as a catholic sister, and because people surrounding us would say, in response to our attempts to evangelize them (mennonites and amish, German baptists, Russian baptists, etc.) In this way. "You ask us if we believe in jesus--do you believe in the headcovering?" Thereby, in her mind, equating Jesus with the head covering (which, sadly, they did). I do believe the head covering is a thing, and should be used. We may be moving back that way. She does keep her hair up, to not display her glory except to me, or in our home. The head covering is unchanged in its significance, as evidenced by the wicked seeking to eliminate differences In Hair between women and men. Or reverse them.
Honoring your Father and Mother doesn't mean being subject to them your entire life... they are not God.... Man will LEAVE his father and mother.... read that again... you're not "taking their grandkids"... those are YOUR children....YOUR family... YOUR HOUSE. STAND UP AND LEAD YOUR WIFE AND CHILDREN AS CHRIST HAS CALLED YOU TO.
we should honor our parents and if they need our help, we should help.
@@ari9525 helping them does not necessarily mean continuing to live in a situation that isn't good for your own family.
@@ari9525 agreed.... but that's not what I'm talking about.... I am responsible for my house and family... A Man whom abdicates his responsibility is effeminate and will not inherit the kingdom... honoring your parents doesn't mean being an incompetent emotional toddler the rest of your life
@ShenanigansOfMannanan, do you really think that this is what Pastor Joel is encouraging? Being an “incompetent emotional toddler”? He was just summarizing a few key points in his decision here, you can find a more in depth discussion of his reasons in other videos.
Here is Heiser's podcast about head coverings. Very interesting on its own, but in the context of this particular conversation, I found it helpful. ruclips.net/video/Fn9Q_YMSfA4/видео.html
Paul is raising arguments to himself like He always does.
Take the statement as a whole instead of stopping Paul's line of thought.
I think there is a bit of stretch to say one "needs" their wife. For example, my wife is extremly helpful and I apreciate that and love her dearly. However if she were to tragically pass my mission in Christ would not as a consequence become impossible. She is extremely helpful to my mission but not nessasary. I do not need her as I do food, air, or Christ.
You’re right; you don’t need her in that basic way as if you would perish without her. You need her like Adam needed a helper fit for him. We use the word “need” in a range of ways, and it is not wrong to use it for something less than an absolute need.
Refreshing to see a brother in Christ, stand firm on a conter culteral Biblical position. I Corinthians 11 is very clear! I am just a simple minded man who read 1 Corinthians 11, and it was so clear my wife now covers her head and I was emboldened to speak the truth in this video, instead of being a coward, because it is so clear. If my simple mind can see it, I know God can convict more men and women to read the text for themself without eisegeting the text to make it say something else! ruclips.net/video/1tkQrh6N68A/видео.htmlsi=5NqvbCTngivlgpkF
16:30 that's because we have no problem enforcing Christian morality on men. Women get a pass...always.
Very true.
If the hair was the headcovering ment in Corinthians, then ALL men should SHAVE their heads when praying. It is obvious the text talks about TWO different coverings -hair on both men and women, and headcovering for WOMEN only!
If you are saying that those who believe that the covering is hair and that their interpretation does not make sense because it would mean that they would have to shave every time they pray then you are misunderstanding the concept. I assume that you are referring to the verse that says that men ought to pray or prophesy uncovered. Uncovered does not mean shaving it means not covered in long hair aka short hair. Just like covered for women means covered in long hair. Plus Paul was not being conditional about two moments he was giving examples that it wouldn't look right if a believing man were to pray or prophesy or ANY other holy act with long hair.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter and yet you guys here in US don't even do what YOU believe. Why are so many preachers preaching and praying with hats on. Worship leaders leading worship with hats on. Women cut their hair short like men then go on and preach. It's a zoo not a church. No wonder that people have lost respect for the Christian God in the west cause his "children" treat every commandment as optional and trample the gospel with their feet.
@@jojojordan5557 Why are you so stuck on the idea of hats? There is no verse that requires men or women to put on or take off a hat. I will agree that women ought not to cut their hair because there is biblical precedence on hair but NOT hats.
The reason that that the church is like a zoo is not because the lack of hats or the wearing of hats that would be extremely illogical. There are so many reasons that there is not enough time to mention all of them. Like telling people that everyone who is a Christian are unified yet have to explain the godless reason for denominationalism. How that people get PAID to preach the gospel in the church when we should freely preach. How people ask others to continue following an OT doctrine of TITHING. And they don’t even get that right since tithing was supposed to be food. But they will push this more than any other OT doctrine. Why? Because money is involved. Churchianity and manmade denominationalism are the real problems here not a hat. SMH.
@@JohnYoder-vi1gj I would have to agree hats or veils are inconsequential to the many false doctrines or man-made rules that have caused many to flee their churches. There is an epidemic and it definitely revolves around churches and their contradicting rules.
This is not an argument against covering our heads-- But this idea has been abused in the past with women growing competitive with bright, elaborate hats, veils or expensive lace. Some churches may still embrace that today. Maybe this is one reason it has fallen out of favor because it became so vain and sinful, defeating the purpose. It also may be a way of distinguishing Protestants from a Catholic tradition, though they no longer require it.
The Bible states her long hair is given to her for a covering. A veil is not needed in prayer.
They address this in the video and explain why that's not the right interpretation
@@cosmictreason2242 The Bible states clearly in Corinthians - A woman's long hair is given to her for a covering in prayer. It also states nature itself teaches, a man should have short hair and is the head spiritually and in protection over the woman. The woman is over the children spiritually and in protection. The husband is the spiritual leader in the home of the family. He should pray without a head covering in honor to God whom is the ultimate head over the family as a whole.
@@mvies77 let me use an example to help you understand how the grammar is not clear like you present it.
a gun is given to you for a weapon
a gun is given to you for a fun day of shooting
The first tells you what the thing is.
The second tells you what the thing is going to be used for.
To say that hair is given for a covering does not necessarily mean that it is given to her to be the sole sufficient covering. It can very well say that it is given to her to be covered also.
@@cosmictreason2242 Of course a woman can wear a hat, a beanie or a crown in prayer. It means a covering is not required, She can wear anything but the fulfillment of a covering is her hair alone. Henry hair is given as the fulfillment of the required covering. But a man should not cover his head at all because his spiritual authority or head comes directly from God as the spiritual leader and protector over the family. God is above all, then man and then woman and then children. God has set up the family as the foundation of humanity. This is why it is attacked so fiercely. The destruction of the family is the basis of all that is destructive and terminal in society. Every aspect of the purpose and existence of the family has been under focus from evil forces to fail for decades if not centuries. God ordained the family unit in specific order and strength with specific duties to one another.
@@mvies77 "the fulfillment of a covering is her hair alone."
The context of the passage as a whole makes this interpretation impossible. I used to think so too but it is inconsistent.
Jesus prayed with a synthetic covering over his head… so did he disgrace his head?
When?
@@cosmictreason2242 check out Deut 22:12 then cross reference to Num 15:38-40. Next check out Matt 14:36 and cross reference to Malachi 4:2. Very fascinating study on the shawl.
I looked up these passages, and maybe there’s some cultural context I don’t know, but I see no reason to conclude that the garments mentioned were to cover their heads with.
Also, did you mean Malachi 4:2? I don’t see the connection with that verse?
@@kaylar3197 Yup, the hebrews covered their heads when praying and reading the Torah. Malachi is referenced because the messiah was prophesied to have a shawl (wings) that had healing power, specifically the cords that would come down from it. That is why the woman touches his cloak :) you can also see how wings is used to refer to a cloak in Ruth 3:9. What some high end Pharisees would do was make their tassels longer to insinuate they might be the messiah or to be considered more holy. Does that explain why?
I appreciate that explanation; that helps me see the line of your reasoning. I still don’t see it as a conclusive argument, but I would be intrigued to hear Pastor Joel’s response. With all the questions here, maybe he should start doing some Q&A sessions. lol
In conclusion…..? 😬
Should be worn any time you're engaged in corporate worship, not limited to the weekly gathering. That includes conferences where there's singing and praying, it includes the prayer meeting, it includes Bible study, it includes family worship, it includes praying for a meal. It would not include riding your bike or giving your children religious instruction. That's the most consistent interpretation I've landed on. Otherwise if it's just during the weekly gathering -- does she cease to be under authority, or cease to have hair, or cease to worship God, for the rest of the week? Or if it's all the time, is she really 'praying and prophesying' at all times during the week? What about when she's showering or sleeping? So I think the context must be limited to worship, but it must go beyond the weekly gathering, because that is simply not a limiting factor that is presented in the Scripture.
Not sure we agree but thankful you take Scripture seriously. Think it's about hair length.
The head covering being the hair is untenable.
1 Corinthians 11:5-6
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
Let's do some substituting and replace the word not covered with short hair/being shorn and see if that makes sense.
1 Corinthians 11:6
For if the woman be not covered/IS SHORN, let her also be shorn/NOT COVERED: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
Essentially it would mean if she has short hair/be shorn let her have short hair/be shorn which is a double negative which makes no sense.
The other striking blow the long hair equals head-covering position is that different Greek words are used. If Paul meant to teach that hair was the head-covering spoken of in verse 6 why would he use a different word in verse 15?
1 Corinthians 11:6
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
katakalyptesthō
Strong's 2619
1 Corinthians 11:15
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
peribolaiou
Strong's 4018
@@innovationhq8230 that argument supports Bnonn's proposed interpretation that Paul is making a side comment with reference to the testicular argument that has been presented, and not continuing the previous train of thought. This is me agreeing with you, ftr. It's as if Paul is saying, 'look, if you're not convinced that it should be covered on the basis of it being a competing glory to God's glory, ought you not at least to agree that it should be covered on the basis of it being shameful?' Basically I think he's laying out a tautology, that whether you think it's shameful or not, glorious or not, then the conclusion is the same. But of course we wish Paul had fleshed out his comments in more detail - or less, even. :D
If this were about hair length, good luck telling women they are in disobedience due to their hairstyle, or those who can't seem to grow it very long for all sorts of reasons. People who take this view just shrug it off entirely, bc I have never heard a preacher tell women they're to have long hair, even though they take this view. In fact, all pastor's wives I've known over the years have not only had short to shoulder-length hair, but none of them have covered. So if that's the argument, then why isn't it being followed? Exactly.
@@anniemorris9632 most pastors are afraid of women. Women hold a grudge, most are influenced by the feminist movement and don't even know it and maybe the pastors figure this isn't worth a church split.
take it up with our father adam, dear. @@christianmama2441
There is no excuse for married women not to obey the head-covering exhortations as they were always worn in churches up to around the 1950s. At this time, Hollywood took ahold of fellowships. Pastors, to justify their stances regarding women no longer being required to wear the head-covering, stated it was obsolete because it was simply the custom of the day when the Scriptures were penned. Well, the church is never about the customs of the world, culture or society. It is about coming out from society and culture and being separate. Plus, God desires distinctions among His children. Men and women are called to present differentials. Married women are to wear something on their head and men do not. And most men obey this passage and do not wear anything on their head during church. You know this is addressing the church body as men can wear protective head attire outside the assembly. Men are to have short hair and women long and most Christian men obey this command.
Men are to be leaders in the church and women are to be silent. Sadly, homosexuality has performed all it can to remove God's distinctions.
Many women also desired their hair short to imitate the hairstyles of the starlets of Hollywood. And, of course, this continues today. And is it no wonder, when our fellowships want to be rock and rolling with the sexy beat of the satanic world and even having movie nights with vile productions.
God says women's long hair is a covering and women always need more to cover themselves for modesty-sake, plus, the lovely hair God gave women is their glory.
One lady, years ago, told me in her church in Europe, they had extra hats in the back and they would hand them to ladies if they arrived without one.
Some people state the angels addressed in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 are evil and so not obeying is no big deal. However, if you research the Greek, you rightly understand the word “angels” means ministering angels, not demons.
We are never to disrespect God’s holy angels-2 Peter 2:10-11-“and especially those who indulge the flesh in corrupt desires and despise authority. Daring, self-willed, they do not tremble when they revile angelic majesties, whereas angels who are greater in might and power do not bring a reviling judgment against them before the Lord.” Sad, today, we do not see a fear of angels regarding 1 Corinthians chapter 11.
It is disheartening to observe no fear of God before pastors' eyes and all persons regarding angels in relation to this subject.
(My heart is to follow the apostles' example. For many walk according to what they think or have experienced or what others think or have experienced. This hurts my heart and such actions made Paul and the other apostles weep. We are to only walk according to Christ's and the apostles' examples and teachings without questioning-1 Corinthians 11:1, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Peter 3:2 and Jude 17, etc. The Word of God never changes to suit manufactured doctrines, culture, contemporaryism, society, entertainment, and activities! Those who do not obey are the enemies of Christ, whose end is their destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is their shame, who set their minds on earthly things; Philippians 3:17-19. vallee7.wordpress.com/)
I think there's a strong probability that Paul *is* referencing the events of Gen. 6, but not because of a guard against tempting the angels or something. And I don't think it's irrelevant, tangential, or a "foreign filter" to the NT authors.
We actually see the apostles reference the angels - presumably of Gen. 6 - on at least two other occasions, and the topic is consistently authority. I think Paul is pointing to the disobedient angels here as a sort of cautionary tale.
There are quite a few things I have learned about recently relating to this topic that would have been nice if you had addressed in this video so maybe in the future they could be addressed.
The first issue has to do with men covering their heads in worship.
In a sermon I listened to on this issue it was stated that John Calvin and many second reformation Presbyterian ministers and Puritan ministers preached with their heads covered.
Excerpt of Calvin's Commentary on 1 Cor. 11:4.
For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit.
John Trapp
Commentary on 1 Corinthians, ch. 11
Dishonoureth his head] As they accounted it then and there. In other places it is otherwise. The French preach covered. The Turks neither kneel nor uncover the head at public prayer, as holding those postures unmanly. Several countries have their several customs. Basiliades, duke of Muscovy, showed himself a tyrant in nailing an ambassador’s hat to his head, for not uncovering it before him.”
Henry Hickman
Bonasus vapulans [A Bull being Whipped], or, Some Castigations given to Mr. John Durell for Fouling Himself & Others in his English & Latin Book by a Country Scholar
pp. 55-57
Eighthly, Above all, what need we be told, pag. 22. That Calvin wore a Gown and a Cap: Were not Presbyterians accu∣stomed so to do in the Universities? Those sent down by the two Houses to Cambridge, did all of them preach in the University Church in their Gowns, and in their Hoods;”
Before I had heard in that it was the unanimous consent of the churches that head covering was required and that the nobody was advocating the idea that it was cultural until the 1900s or coinciding with feminism invading the churches but now I don't think that was the case.
Geneva Bible 1599 Notes on 1 Corinthians 11:4
It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection.
The other argument against head-coverings being mandated today is that they were for the exercising of extraordinary spiritual gifts and that with those no longer being in operation/if you hold to Cessationism the covering is no longer required. It would be interesting if this argument was addressed.
Something else interesting that I learned about relating to this issue is that church fathers like Tertullian are put forward as advocates of head-covering but then some say that you should not want him to be on your side since he essentially advocated for burqa use.
Tertullian The Veiling of Virgins Chapter 17
Its limits and boundaries reach as far as the place where the robe begins. The region of the veil is co-extensive with the space covered by the hair when unbound; in order that the necks too may be encircled. For it is they which must be subjected, for the sake of which power ought to be had on the head: the veil is their yoke. Arabia's heathen females will be your judges, who cover not only the head, but the face also, so entirely, that they are content, with one eye free, to enjoy rather half the light than to prostitute the entire face.
In the end I still think mandated head-covering is the biblical position but their is much interesting historical information regarding this issue and other things that complicate things.
Hierarchy of men women and angel is what you see. 🤯You're leaving out the part about (we have no such custom). When was a commitment given that women should come into the House of Prayers yet only pray to God if their head is covered? God has nothing against a women when a shave their heads. You are using the wisdom from your flashfood and not listening to the Spirit of the Lord. Jesus is the spirit of Prophecy. It is not up to you to decide who God honors with his gifts. We are no longer under law a woman can touch Holy Things. The woman on her menstrual cycle touching Jesus was something that went over your head.
The Bible is Holy and Good.
Thanks for this, Pastor Joel. I would be curious to know how you understand at what point a girl becomes a woman for head covering purposes. How do we know when to start with our daughters? Is there a biblical case to support a certain age or stage?
(Please don’t say when menstruation begins. What a humiliating way to announce to the whole congregation that you are going through a difficult and embarrassing transition!)
i mean that would probably be the answer lol.
First Corinthians 11:10 says “That is why a WIFE ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” That’s where I would find my answer from the scripture which says wife. We have to always Be careful not to take the scripture further than what it says. The Bible does not say when a girl becomes a woman it addresses the wife-husband relationship. I hope this helps.
@@TheIndecisiveWigWearer well, the word in the Greek just means woman. To narrow it to wife in this context is to take it further than it ought to be. A woman does not only begin to come under authority when she marries, nor does her hair only begin to become a glory to her when she marries. The symbolism points to all women.
I thought HEAD COVERING was Ling hair..and the extra, was a double covering
@@TheIndecisiveWigWearer symbol of authority is long hair..
If hair is short, then, a hat or scarf
It's why, long hair on men, is a shame ...yo me. It's like 🤘baphomet
That's what I thought of the semen argument completely stupid
John MacArthur teaches the Lordship salvation heresy.
You mean orthodoxy
@@cosmictreason2242 Roman Catholics would agree that faith + works = salvation is orthodoxy too. I put my faith in Christ alone.
@@jesuscameintheflesh4725 and so you sin unrepentantly?
Doug Wilson flubs it badly here.
I don't agree with your worshiping of the Father ,The Son and The Holy Ghost ?
"We are complete in HIM"
"COME UNTO ME "- NOT WE
I WILL MAKE YOU WHOLE,
I WILL GIVE YOU REST
I AM , THE DOOR
GOOD IS SINGULAR
ONE GOD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM
Every person of the Trinity is individually referred to as God in Scripture. This is a faith essential. If you're not yet converted, you probably need to start with the Gospel itself
@@cosmictreason2242 reading the bible is the least likely thing to communicate a trinitarian position. shouldn't you be referencing one of a few roman state communions occurring 3 or 4 centuries after the apostles' deaths?
Jesus saved not religion
You worship YHWH on the seventh day of the week, not the first. Isaiah 66:22-23
Stop listening to whoever you’re listening to that’s drawing you away from the body of Christ
@@cosmictreason2242 isn't he right though? god rested on the seventh day.
@@xxxViceroyxxx the New Testament establishes that Christians worship on the first day of the week.
@@xxxViceroyxxxhis implicit point is 7DA and that's what I'm addressing. His face value comment is not his real concern, it's deceitful
@@cosmictreason2242 we miss you over at lori’s, guy
Am so glad to love Yeshua on not this ignorance I see here.
Men don’t take their hats off because of Paul. He’s not the originator. Something or someone else is informing Paul. And it’s not God, because he appeals to nature and suggests that they should already be familiar with this concept.
Should a man wear a head covering?
Just as women should cover their head to show they are submitting to their spouse, then men should cover to show they to need to submit to God. If he has chosen Jesus as His Lord, then he should show that commitment by wearing a head covering, just as women show their submission, so should man.
The difference is not the head covering but who wears it and when. In Deut. 6:8-9, God tells us to apply the Ten Commandments on our forehead, then, when Jesus tells us to "keep" also His words, we apply the Sermon on the Mount to show our commitment to The Father and The Son.
A man should never wear a head covering, in church, if they haven't chosen Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. They are not to submit to any man, company etc.. They have to remove their head covering before entering a church etc.. To not wear a head covering simply shows that you have not chosen in whom you shall serve.
If a woman is married and the man has not committed to the Lord then she also should not cover, for then she would be usurping the man's authority.
A woman should be covering her head, the man in her life. Every child of God should cover with The Father or The Son, or even the Holy Spirit. The scripture shows that all three would be what we should strive for.