Head Coverings & Patriarchy | A Charitable Response To Owen Strachan & Costi Hinn
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июл 2023
- Owen Strachan and Costi Hinn recently addressed what they consider to be an “overreaction” to the culture’s attacks on masculinity. Has there been a legitimate overreaction? Let’s discuss the facts.
Ministry Sponsors:
Squirrelly Joes Coffee - Caffeinating The Modern Reformation
Visit squirrellyjoes.com to purchase your coffee today!
Enter promo code "RRM" for 20% off your order.
Private Family Banking:
Email at banking@privatefamilybanking.com to schedule an appointment today!
Register for our Fall 2023 Conference, "The Household And The War For The Cosmos." www.tickettailor.com/events/r...
Register for our Spring 2024 Conference, "Blueprints For Christendom 2.0: Seven Doctrines For Ruling The World." www.tickettailor.com/events/r...
Also to purchase Joel’s book they can find it on Amazon or directly from our website at:
rightresponseministries.com/f...
Subscribe to our Theology Applied podcast below:
Apple podcast: bit.ly/theologyapplied
Spotify podcast: bit.ly/theologyappliedspotify
Google Play podcast: bit.ly/theologyappliedgooglep...
*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/
#patriarchy #headcovering #christianity
Our pastor addressed the head covering issue in the course of preaching through Corinthians a couple years ago. Only a handful of women in the church were already wearing head coverings before then, but most of the married women under 40, myself included, transitioned to wearing them afterwards. Many of us hadn’t heard a pro-head covering case presented from Scripture before, and we were convinced by his faithful preaching. There was no shaming or coercion.
Have to look at the context every one is missing the point that it wasn't in church but outside of church..
It's not weird it's not properly interpreted...
They wore a cover when they prayed or prophesized because in the church the women were to remain silent.
Appreciate the humility...but yes missing it..
@@wyattsmith563exactly. Scripture specifies that women are to remain silent in church specifically, but only reference praying and prophesying for wearing head coverings. I can't get past that and nothing any pastor has said has changed that.
I had never heard this about submitting to an unbelieving husband, thank you so much for sharing this.
Pastor Joel, I have learned so much about our Sovereign Lord from your faithful preaching and teaching of the Whole Counsel of God. I am grateful to God for your diligence and continued walk with Him. Thank you from Breaux Bridge, Louisiana.
Praise God for brother Costi and his ministry. All Glory to God
It takes guts to get behind a camera and in the twittersphere to stand on biblical patriarchy. I commend you Pastor. Also I think that you are correct on the gatekeeping, I see it in my reformed community.
Oh yes, such guts to sit behind a computer screen. So brave 😂
@@Fearlessly91 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😒😒🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣
I think that it’s more than simple gatekeeping, it’s a fear of man/culture. I agree on the bookend concept and I believe that it is a primary concern with being the “accepted” right side bookend and not being associated with anything or anyone that hasn’t been “screened” or “authorized”. That’s why you see the fear of the fringe extremist or wrongthink, it’s a fear that someone may tarnish the bookend to the books sitting in the middle of the shelf.
There is a dogged determination by that whole crowd to continually take the most normie position possible, and then concern troll everyone to their right as potentially “damaging the gospel”.
Thanks for making this response video, I watched the Owen/Costi one earlier and also can't see the difference between many of your positions. I'm glad you brought up Sproul and his wife, it's just so simple and logical when you see that feminism threw off headcoverings when it threw off the 'horror' of submission.
8:30 "I've never said that." Yes, Joel, you have said it, and very recently.
You yourself said, "We're not talking about learning we're talking about what women should teach to other women. So the woman should sit right next to the men learning theology proper learning doctrine of God, um, but when it comes to older women teaching younger women, the reason why I think *it's primarily about these domestic feminine type of things* is because, when it comes to learning doctrine of God and Systematic Theology, the context for a woman to learn--and she must learn those things--but the context for her to learn those things is right next to her husband on the Lord's Day." (Emphasis my own. See your recent video with Doug Wilson, under your "Live" tab, entitled _Patriarchy Vs. Complementarianism, "Shiny Happy People," & "The Rise & Fall of Mars Hill",_ at about 23 minutes in.)
Dale Partridge has a video where he makes it clear that women are not to teach other women theology. In discussing Titus 2:3-5, Dale says, "We are God's people and we are resting in God's order. This is the curriculum for women. This is, He wants women to understand that, and Paul, again just listed the syllabus of what's in that curriculum and *he did not include theology.* He did not include talking about those deeper academic realities that are reserved for the elders and the pastors and teachers within the church. But, again, it's not that women can't learn theology they can and they should learn theology *they simply should not learn it from other women* but from their appropriate spiritual head or from the oversight of a spiritual head. Now, you might be asking the question, 'Dale, so are you saying that no Women's Bible study is better than a woman-led Bible study?' And I say, yes, I think that it would be better to have no Women's Bible studies." (Emphasis my own. See Dale's video entitled, _Should Women Teach Theology to Other Women? Part 1 - Dale Partridge,_ at about 39 minutes in.)
Yep...Joel and Dale are deceivers and need to be called out. They add to Scripture and then pretend they don't when called out!
YEP...just watched the video you mentioned. Joel DID say that women should not learn theology from other women!!
And his buddy Dale has said the same thing!!
Joel needs to repent for lying!!
@@akadwriter I'd put the links here, but the comment would get vaporized.
Based on your quote and this video, he and Owen are saying they can teach theology as long as it is in the prescribed ways in Titus 2; theology that is necessary to relate to those areas. But the "pastoral" theology should be taught by the Biblically qualified elders. Otherwise, women would be functioning as pastors like the example he talked about today.
@@danielwood8840 I'm not talking about what Joel is trying to teach, but that he is claiming not to have said something he actually did say.
At 8:04, Costi says, "There is a view now that I'm hearing in which, you know, women are not even supposed to, or allowed to teach women theology. They only would teach homemaking."
At 8:30, Joel says, "I've never said that."
In Joel's _Patriarchy Vs. Complementarianism_ video, he says, "When it comes to older women teaching younger women, the reason why I think it's primarily about these domestic feminine type of things is because, when it comes to learning doctrine of God and Systematic Theology, the context for a woman to learn--and she must learn those things--but the context for her to learn those things is right next to her husband on the Lord's Day."
Joel's perspective in the _Patriarchy_ video is summarized by Costi at 8:04, but Joel is claiming to never have said that.
In Dale's video _Should Women Teach Theology to Other Women? Part 1,_ he says, "It's not that women can't learn theology--they can and they should learn theology--they simply should not learn it from other women."
Dale's perspective in the _Part 1_ video is summarized by Costi at 8:04, but Joel is claiming Dale never said that.
I am now convinced that the covering is both a command and more importantly symbolic of a spiritual reality, and that you are right a woman/wife being quiet and gentle is a more important demonstration of being covered than being loud and argumentative and only physically covered. I see that the physical covering is to be a symbol that she is in quiet submission to her husband, father or pastor/elders, and to Jesus. Since, Christ is the head covering of the church, the Husband the head covering of his Wife, the Father the Head covering of his children especially his daughters, and the pastor the head covering/Shepard of local church. At the very least, all women, regardless of age, are to be in submission to a male covering over her and women who are able are to grow long hair. Every staunch feminist has short hair.
I agree, women should only teach what's listed in Titus 2 and how theology applies to THAT
Owen’s constant concern trolling is beyond tiresome. It’s hilarious that he thinks he has the right to gatekeep, but that’s what this is. Guys mad that unwashed non seminarians are getting such a big audience. Hence the credential concern trolling as well.
@nathanielkeane8462 🎯 I think you've nailed the underlying issue
My view: They fear and hate theonomy, and they fear and hate the ridicule and persecution from the worldlings; that’s why they’re gatekeeping.
Edited to add: I’m writing this at the time Ligon Duncan made remarks about “Moscow mood” people LARPing and lob grenades indiscriminately. More gatekeeping. And it’s been going on for a long time in Christian circles.
This very teaching (that since God ordains all things he ordained your abuse for your own good, and you therefore should not call out or leave an abusive husband) helped keep me in domestic abuse, and kept me from setting appropriate boundaries. It is dangerous, and has life or death consequences. This kind of marriage is not a picture of Christ and the Church. It damages both the abuser and the abused, as well as the children who grow up with this warped picture of marriage.
He's not talking about an abusive relationship. This is for godly relationships and even marriages to unbelievers. Abusive relationships would be submitting to sin. While divorce may or may not be an option, separation to keep oneself or children safe is still an option. Of course, there will be those who abuse the biblical doctrine. I would suggest that instead of assuming that staying with an abuser is what Pst Joel means; ask him what his position would be in an abusive situation. ie Christians can allow the legal system to hold an abusive spouse accountable as one option.
@angelajoy6789 how do you define domestic abuse?
No matter what side you stand on the head covering debate…I don’t think the Bible had in mind women wearing tank tops and long hair down and out with a literal regular headband and saying “we’re covered ✅”
Fair point. "Covering" is a principle not just for the head
Not making sense brother… if you believe that head coverings are a command ( around the 1hour mark) yet you’ve went out of your way not to teach it or in your position even bringing it up, why do those statements not fit? If you’re withholding a command then you’re not being faithful to the body. Help me to understand this, blessings
Joel, could women in your church have their own study of the Gospel of Mark in one of their homes during the week?
My wife and I have decided that it is a biblical command to cover her head but still struggle with some application.
1) is it only on the Lord’s day at church or is it anytime she is praying?
2) is it all women or just married women? Should I be doing this with my daughter as she gets older (she is 6 months)?
3) thoughts on hats vs full covering?
Thanks
Yup, good questions to work out.
Obviously the Bible doesn't work out all these details so there's liberty in how you work out obedience to what is said in the word.
God bless your wife for submitting to this difficult command these days
I have found an answer to one of my questions in case someone wanted to know. The Greek word for “women” in the passage refers only to adults (not children). It can be questioned whether it is married or unmarried. But definitely not a command to cover up your young daughter.
@@ValentFJ We practice head coverings at our church so I can weigh in on your questions.
1. We would say anytime she is praying or prophesying. The passage doesn't give any qualifiers, so we shouldn't add any.
2. In order to pray and prophesy, you need to be indwelled by Holy Spirit. Therefor, any woman who is born again, married or not, should pray and prophesy with a covering.
3. The women in our church use hats, scarves, hoods from sweatshirts etc.
It doesn't say to put the covering on when praying or prophesying. It says to not uncover the hair when praying and prophesying. That presupposes it was already on most of the time.
@@SherrickDuncan If it was meant to be worn at all times, it would make no sense for Paul to say that having an uncovered head while praying and prophesying is disgraceful. He mentions it because that is the context in which having an uncovered head is disgraceful. Verse 6 starts with “For if a woman does not cover her head” meaning there is an act of putting a covering on and it not being an abiding or constantly worn symbol.
What I don't get is 1 Corinthians 11 is written to men and woman but it's only optional for woman and based on "personal convictions " , if a man dishonors his head who is Christ he should be rebuked
I might be missing something here but if you agree with the complimentarian position what is the value of changing the language?
"Man and Woman in Biblical Law: A Patriarchal Manifesto" by Tom Shipley is a must read for anyone interested in Biblical patriarchy and how it relates to marriage.
Love the first and second book.
And the author Himself. A good friend of Mine.
He is the only other Theonomist besides Myself that I know that also believes and understand the Theological topic that shall/must not be named. 😅
@@SherrickDuncan I believe that's because most so-called theonomists are more worried about peer approval than they are about defending the truth and consistently applying God's law to every aspect of life. The fact that God plainly portrays Himself as the polygynous husband of *two women* in Scripture (Jeremiah 3:8-10; 31:32; Ezekiel 23:1-4, 36-37), should be sufficient *in itself* for any honest Christian to re-evaluate their erroneous monogamy-only presupposition. Our holy God cannot maintain His righteousness while metaphorically portraying Himself as blatantly *violating* His own law! Not to mention, there's not a single verse in all of Scripture that *prohibits* polygyny per se, but rather *regulates* its practice (e.g., Exodus 21:7-11; Deuteronomy 21:11-14; 2 Samuel 12:8; 2 Chronicles 24:3). If Joel Webbon "is not a fan" of polygyny, then perhaps he believes that God got it wrong in His law? 🤔
IF the long hair on a women is a covering then culturally we can advocate for men to pray and prophesy with their head covered so long as they have short hair. But I don’t hear this argument.
I realize that there has been some controversial over your book.I must admit that sometimes you talk over my head, but I understood better when I listened to you and AD and you an another brother. "GOD BLESS"
You mentioned that 98% of the patriarchal and hard complementarian position agree, and that Owen articulated the patriarchal position well. It seems to me that this is more of a battle of semantics. Perhaps you could explain the 2% difference in these 2 positions.
dale partridge wrote a book that did a phenomenal job explaining head coverings
and joel has a ton of explanations of patriarchy, he did one with doug wilson recently
What do the scriptures say about patriarchy outside of the theology realm. Do they say much about leadership in every day life circumstances?
Well, the fact that all leaders were men, and that there were Kings, pretty much establishes the fact that it was a patriarchical society
What if our husband doesnt want us to cover?
If he has told you not to, and covering is a symbol of submission to him, wouldn't it be silly to cover in disobedience to him?
@danlauingii480 yes, which is why I obey him. I may cover privately sometimes when he isn't home but that's the extent.
Dale Partrirdge makes the case against women teaching theology.
Would you share where he does this so we can check it out for ourselves?
I had this same thought. At best I think Dale presents a position that could be interpreted the way costi represented it. But I’m not positive. Perhaps Dale might disagree. However, I do believe Dale has some bigger things he needs to work through regarding his own qualification for ministry.
@@kaylar3197 Dale Partridge has a video where he makes it clear that women are not to teach other women theology. In discussing Titus 2:3-5, Dale says, "We are God's people and we are resting in God's order. This is the curriculum for women. This is, He wants women to understand that, and Paul, again just listed the syllabus of what's in that curriculum and *he did not include theology.* He did not include talking about those deeper academic realities that are reserved for the elders and the pastors and teachers within the church. But, again, it's not that women can't learn theology they can and *they should learn theology they simply should not learn it from other women* but from their appropriate spiritual head or from the oversight of a spiritual head. Now, you might be asking the question, 'Dale, so are you saying that no Women's Bible study is better than a woman-led Bible study?' And I say, yes, I think that it would be better to have no Women's Bible studies." (Emphasis my own. See Dale's video entitled, _Should Women Teach Theology to Other Women? Part 1 - Dale Partridge,_ at about 39 minutes in.)
Joel also has spoken against women teaching other women theology. He said, "We're not talking about learning we're talking about what women should teach to other women. So the woman should sit right next to the men learning theology proper learning doctrine of God, um, but when it comes to older women teaching younger women, the reason why I think *it's primarily about these domestic feminine type of things* is because, when it comes to learning doctrine of God and Systematic Theology, the context for a woman to learn--and she must learn those things--but the context for her to learn those things is right next to her husband on the Lord's Day." (Emphasis my own. See his recent video with Doug Wilson, under his "Live" tab, entitled _Patriarchy Vs. Complementarianism,_ at about 23 minutes in.)
@@brettmagnuson8318 Dale regularly abuses God's Word AND has repeatedly been deceptive about his qualifications.
He should be marked and avoided. Period.
@@akadwriter hey man! I know how you feel about Dale. You don’t need to remind me. 😊 I don’t agree about your first charge. And I know I owe you a response from our last exchange. I lost interest though 🤷🏼♂️ let’s just agree to disagree on that one. Keep on ministering in your local body and I promise to do the same.
I've never been able to get onto the head covering thing because there is no explicit old testament law. That and when God covered Adam and Eve it doesn't state that He gave them both tunica and then gave Eve a head covering. Just two thoughts that come to mind.
If the covering is not a physical covering and just the hair, then men are commanded to remove their HAIR!!!
Lol
Nope,
1 Corinthians 11: 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has "LONG" hair, it is a dishonor to him,
@@chrismatthews1762 What is the definition of "LONG"? Some think their hair is long if they haven't shaved it within the past couple weeks. Others think longer than shoulder length. And how long should a woman's hair be? Shoulder length? Chest length? Down to their butt? And is the hair supposed to cover their entire face when they pray? Are they not allowed to cut their bangs? Are they supposed to walk around looking like Cousin Itt?
@@nerychristian it means something or Paul wouldn't have said. Sounds like you're looking for an excuse to not submit to the command
@@chrismatthews1762 How can I submit to something I don't understand? If you were to teach a woman about this, and she asked you, "how long does my hair have to be in order to be considered a covering for my head? Am I allowed to trim it?"
I would say you have mentioned head coverings on this channel about 3 times. Well now 4. Lol
PS every time you mention these loud and disobedient women, I wonder if you would think that of me in person or not. Because I love theology, and discussing it in good company, and I’m not passive and shy. But I’m also a bit scared by the fundamentalist in my past, that thought that me knowing theology and speaking at all, marked me as magically unsubmissive. I hope you wouldn’t find me in that bad light. And I hope that an extrovert like me wouldn’t be labeled sort of disobedient for being and extrovert. :-/
Extrovert is not sinful. There’s a dynamic difference between an extroverted woman and a domineering one.
@@RightResponseMinistries I would most certainly agree! But what do you think that looks like? What is a domineering woman? I say this as someone who dedicates my life to raising my little family, to God’s glory, and I’m completely removed from things like social media, etc. because I chose not to waste my energy in those things. And I tell you that so you know I’m not being patronizing or anything like that. Do you just mean like the liberal feminist type? But what does that look like in a Christian woman?
This may be a great topic to consider elaborating on in a video, on second thought. Over the past couple years you have mentioned this type a few times, and my mind immediately becomes self conscious in self examination. I don’t want to be perceived as a sinful cackling hen, or domineering. But I do have an outspoken personality. So as the very literal brain type, I would LOVE to hear the Pastoral explanation on what exactly what that woman looks and acts like. The more details the better! ♥️🙏🏽
@jaquirox6579 I was listening to that part and it sounds to me like he is mostly talking about an un-submissive and argumentative (especially with her husband) woman. Perhaps he is using “loud” mainly as the opposite of “quiet and gentle”-meaning her spirit is loud, not so much the pitch of her voice.
@@kaylar3197 that’s helpful! Because I have a natural speaking voice and project it easily, probably because of all the sales I did too. But as I said before, I’m an natural extrovert and really enjoy theology. But where it gets confusing for me personally is probably mostly because of my experiences with fundamentalists groups. Where they literally believe that woman basically should never speak, and should never know theology, so they use similar wording and call them “loud women”, but what they mean is that women are just supposed to be ignorant wall flowers. And I know that isn’t what Joel means at all, but I would love to hear exactly what he does mean by it.
I don’t want to be perceived as unsubmissive to my husband, so it would be helpful to know these details. My husband is not talkative or very social at all, so really the opposite of me. And that makes me wonder if I’m perceived in a bad light because of those personality differences? I don’t know. I think false and heretical churches really mess a lot of us up…. Especially women. So I just greatly appreciate anyone who is ever willing to dig into these little nuanced topics for us, and talk about it in more detail. I still have yet to see in real life, a true God honoring church. I’ve seen a lot of false churches, and authoritarian churches, and fundamentalists churches. I know what scripture says about how a church should be, but when u haven’t seen it in real life practice yet…. you still have many questions like this. On matters that are really just basic social questions.
Anyways, thank u for responding and lending your perception to me. 🙏🏽♥️🙏🏽
1Co 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. Questions : what then is the custom that Paul is referring to in the text ( 1 Corinthians 11:1-16)? What ever the custom is, it’s not a custom that the church is to adhere to. What’s the custom we are not to adhere to? Blessings
Why would that be the meaning after he spent 15 verses expounding on why women should cover their heads and men shouldn't?
"No such custom" refers to a custom of women not covering their heads in church
I can't understand not believing head covering (actual veil) is for today. Such sound teachers like J. Mac, Costi etc writing it off as a wedding ring or that it's debatable is just baffling. I would love to see a round table discussion with men like that and persons such as yourself discuss and even debate the issue. Or, at least, get together and work out the issue more so they can hear what you (and others) have to say about head covering. I would love to see the church return to the practice of head covering and all it symbolizes-whether you call it 'biblical patriarchy' or 'broad complementarianism'.
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 and for men to be uncovered, 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 “cloth” 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 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 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 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. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say 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.”
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 assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue.
Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix.
“For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold.
This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong.
* 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. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband.
So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? 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.
Probably a lot of women that have a much more sound doctrine of God than this guy
That's why I never liked Shealogians
This podcast chaffs the flesh. The things said sometimes sound extreme. I enjoy it though because it makes one go to the scriptures.
These squirrely Joe's marketing guys sure know their audience
Do they tho
That was hilarious. Awkward, very awkward.
God is a God of order. 1 Cor 11 gives us a constant reminder of that order: 1st God the Father, 2nd Jesus Christ the Son, 3rd Man (as representing Christ), 4th Woman (as representing the church). Men as representing Christ in the church must not have their heads covered. It is dishonoring to the Divine order when we see a brother leading the congregation in any manner with a ball cap on -- especially when praying or teaching. Woman as representing the church in the church must have their heads covered because it is the headship of Christ that we must see in the congregation. The culture thing is is total obfuscation of Paul's points.
And the bible says if women have a theological question....go to WHO?? A woman teacher? No. A pastor? No. Her husband.
I missed why you think that Owen's position isn't on substance but on not wanting YOU to talk about patriarchy. Why do you think that?
I think the fear is that if you are not super careful even with for example how you described your wife encouraging another woman to submit to her unbelieving husband, there was no caveat about what to do if he is physically abusing her. It is important to always say to men and to wives that they should call the police if necessary on an abusive husband. That it is never acceptable for a man to beat his wife or children and that a woman should not be manipulated into feeling like they are honoring God by letting him get away with that abussive behavior in American society. We have been given police and laws that protect us and can and SHOULD call on them to help in that situation. The fear with patriarchy is that women will be encouraged to be abused and remain quiet in it. So every time you say a woman should submit to her ungodly husband people will automatically think of that possibility and be concerned. There has been a history of that type of abuse being acceptable even in the church in the past and it must be rightly guarded against. You will need to shout it from the roof tops every day that beating a woman is not ok and shouldnt be tollerated if you hold to a patriarchy type position, and especially if you are brave enough to call it by that name and do not want to be confused with those who abuse women or encourage women to put up with abuse. This is the main concern. Otherwise i think most complimentarians will agree with your stances and will only not want to be associated with this possible misconception. Your view is (as far as I can tell) the same view strict complimentarians like John Piper have and explained in his book on Biblical manhood and womanhood but they have just done a better job of making it clear that some past abuses are not ok and have labeled it a different name so as not to be associated with past abuses in Patriarchy. If you listen to Piper explain that he doesnt think women should be in personal authoritative directive roles over men even in the secular world, it sounds just like your view.
Keep up the good work
I’m only at the beginning; but the transformed wife on twitter teaches that women shouldn’t teach theology
She is the first person I thought of when he said that.
Humbly reading the greats such as Calvin, other Reformers, and the Puritans, is a rich education. The LORD teaches powerfully through you. You are a blessing.
1 Corinthians 1 : 2
1 From Paul, who was called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and from our brother Sosthenes-
2 This letters is written to THE CHURCH OF GOD which is in Corinth, AND ALSO TO ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE CALLED TO BE GOD'S HOLY PEOPLE, WHO BELONG TO GOD IN UNION WITH CHRIST JESUS, TOGETHER WITH ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE WHO WORSHIP OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, THEIR LORD AND OURS ALSO :
1 Corinthians 11 : 1 - 16
1 Imitate me, then,
just like I imitate Christ.
Covering the Head in Worship
2 I praise you because YOU ALWAYS REMEMBER me AND FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS THAT I HAVE HANDED
ON TO YOU.
3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the supreme over every man, that the husband is the supreme over his wife, and that
God is the supreme over Christ.
4 So a man who prays or who proclaims God's message in public worship with his head covered disgraces Christ.
5 And ANY WOMAN WHO PRAYS OR PROCLAIMS GOD'S MESSAGE IN PUBLIC OR WORSHIPS WITH NOTHING ON AND COVERING HER HAIR DISGRACES HER MALE AUTHORITY FIGURE; THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WOMAN WITH LONG HAIR THAT IS UNCOVERED AND A WOMAN WHOSE HEAD HAS BEEN SHAVED TOTALLY BALD.
6 SO IF THE WOMAN DOES NOT COVER HER LONG HAIR, SHE MIGHT AS WELL CUT OFF ALL OF HER HAIR OFF AND BE BALD. AND SINCE IT IS OBVIOUSLY A SHAMEFUL THING FOR A WOMAN TO SHAVE HER HEAD BALD AND TO CUT OFF ALL OF HER LONG HAIR, THEN SHE SHOULD COVER HER HAIR.
7 A man has no need to cover his head, because he reflects the image and glory of God. But woman reflects the glory of man;
8 for man was not created from
woman, but woman from man.
9 Nor was man created for woman's sake, but woman was created for man's sake.
10 ON ACCOUNT OF THE ANGELS, THEN, A WOMAN SHOULD HAVE A COVERING OVER HER HAIR TO SHOW THAT SHE IS UNDER A MANS AUTHORITY.
11 In our life in the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12 For as woman was made from man, in the same way man is born of woman; and it is God who brings everything into existence.
13 Judge for yourselves whether it is proper for a woman to pray to God in public worship with nothing on her head.
14 Why, nature itself teaches you
that long hair on a man is a disgrace,
15 but on a woman long hair is a thing of beauty. HER LONG HAIR HAS BEEN GIVEN TO HER TO BE COVERED BY A CLOTH MANTLE VEIL COVERING.
16 IF ANYONE WANTS TO ARGUE ABOUT IT, ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS THAT NEITHER WE NOR ANY OF THE TRUE CHURCHES OF GOD HAVE ANY OTHER CUSTOM OTHER THAN WHAT I DESCRIBED ABOVE.
- Jesus / God through
Saint Apostle Paul.
Glad this got cleared up. I had a woman I know cut me off over this subject. Seems they look up to Allie Beth Stuckey type women who value their podcasts over raising their children
That’s a bit slanderous.
@@nathanielkeane8462
That’s right, slander of their children. Child sacrifice…
May the Lord grant Grace
Where's your evidence that Allie values her podcast over her children? Do you monitor Allie's activities besides the 3 hours of her podcast each week?
Guys calm down with defending your idols. Allie works a full time job in the public light, so the OP’s comment is true and valid. Do any of you truly think that a woman with young children can go work a full time job, and still raise her children 100%? You’re deceiving yourselves if you answered yes. And so the next question becomes, are you leaving your children too, and so you feel a defense of her, out of a passive defense of yourself? Something to ponder. God speed. ♥️🙏🏽
@@jaquirox6579 Gotcha, no evidence provided... only speculation. Your speculation about me is dead wrong. Repent of slandering other believers. That's actually Satan's job.
Sounds like you’re whispering in our ears a lot. Maybe bump up your volume. Just feels weird listening sometimes cause it sounds like a dude is whispering in my ear 😅
It's Theology ASMR.
@@TheMaineSurveyor lol. That’s actually the first thing I thought. And I didn’t want to mix those two categories!
Yes he’s like that creepy neighbor asking you what you’re doing this weekend !
Time is a kingdom resource. This should have been a 10 minute video. Max 20 minutes. But there is the financial motivation to stretch these videos out to get more revenue. We all gotta make a living. OTH, if the current views watched till the end that’s about 3700+ kingdom hours wasted, if he edited his content to an 20 minutes that this content would easily fit into. Most RUclipsrs are guilty of this.
Lol. You don’t have to watch the whole thing. This is this brother’s channel, not yours
True enough. And that is a solution prevent me from wasting time. In fact I watch at 2x speed. But my comment was about ALL viewers time being valuable. He is a steward. Obviously, his content is useful to his viewers but redeeming that time should be weighed. Do you see that the opportunity to be concise with his service? Anyway, I think I’ll take my own advice and move in.
Head coverings for women are a command from God. My best friends mother even wears one when she prays in her home. She understands it. It's a beautiful action and it revears God
I’m a married woman and I read my Bible sometimes by myself- sometimes with my husband! I don’t understand what the deal is with women studying the Bible. I don’t think women should preach or teach men. But and I’m saying this nicely- you seem very concerned about keeping women in their place! Why not just teach the word and the deep things of God. Why always just this milk of the word and not meat? We should all be searching for the deep things of God! Eschatology for example….
I’m not sure what your disagreement is. Nothing Pastor Joel says should discourage you from reading your Bible -yes, even without your husband. Why would you think that? And he specifically encouraged that women must learn theology, including eschatology which is a topic he has put out a lot of content on. So what’s the problem?
@@kaylar3197 to be honest- I’m not sure- something just seems off to me- I showed it to my husband- he thinks maybe they’re over emphasizing this patriarchy thing.
@deespence8629 Over emphasizing patriarchy is a different topic but no one is discouraging women from studying their Bible as you said, though I actually don't think pastor Joel and his ministry over emphasize patriarchy, I actually think it's not talked about enough
😅
@@deespence8629You are right on with this sense. Joel's good buddy Dale Patridge has specifically stated that it is wrong for women to teach other women about theology.
Of course he has no Scripture to back this up. These men are the new Judiazers, who love to burden believers with unbiblical nonsense.
Believers are disciples of Jesus who serve Jesus Christ 24/7 365. Our learning of scripture, fellowship, contending for the Faith , praying for one another, preaching the Gospel is not limited by scripture to Sunday Mornings, or teaching only done in the presence of men. Much of ministry is done in the Where 2 are gathered in in my name, Jesus says there I am in your midst. Women have the same Holy Spirit and Bible men have. Also, Christian women are not limited by scripture just learning Or emphasizing Titus 2, it is to be included in teaching by other women. You take the most outrages example of Women’s teachers, but there are faithful Christian women all over the World who serve Jesus in all sorts of capacities such as contending earnestly for the Faith once handed down to the Saints. 1 Corinthians 7 states that an unmarried person can serve the Lord. Women are Christians first, women second.
Where 2 are gathered in my name is a church discipline text. Women are an integral part of the ministry. Gods word has laid down differences in the role of men and women.
Bro, my man spend at 7 1/2 minutes on ads y’all
Out of an hour and a 1/2 ? That seems acceptable
Not all ethnicities can have long hair
That is true but the bible is not referring to those who cannot have long hair but those who chose to cut it short on purpose. Just like we read how men chose not to cut their hair and kept it long (verse 14). Obviously no one is mentioning men who are bald but just those who could grow it long and did because they chose to.
@@GodsWordisTruth-zg1jj the was refering to cultural practice
@@more2much696 Prove it. I think it is obvious that the Bible refers to those women to cut their hair short. This is about one's choice to cut it short or keep it long. Not sure why you would want to instill something like culture when I know you cannot prove that.
Pastor Joel is incorrect. Titus 2 makes it clear that what older women teach younger women is totally different then what older men teach younger men. Younger women are not safegarding their doctrines. They are safeguarding the practicle application of submission in the home. Reading the Bible is important, but a woman should be going to her "husband" if she has any biblical questions, not a woman's bible study.
Well then ... 😐
That’s terrible
@@arcanum3882 if it’s what God’s word says, then it is not terrible. But what society views as acceptable is terrible. We got it backwards.
You are saying, sir, the ultimate source of truth is the eldership or leadership of a Church and not the scriptures. You are teaching women, and men, the wrong source of God's truth.
This sounds very Shiney and Happy....you teach exactly like Bill Gothard....exactly, regarding women submitting to an unbelieving husband and just take the abuse, essentially, because it's God's sovereignty and it's good for the woman.
He has done a couple video about Shiny Happy People comparing and contrasting himself and other Theo bros and current teachers of patriarchy to the folks highlighted in those videos.
@kathrynmurray6297 Okay, that’s just slanderous. He never said anything like, “just take the abuse”. He wasn’t talking about abusive husbands, only unbelieving ones.
If a woman is in a physically abusive situation, she should immediately remove herself and the children. I’ve never said otherwise.
@kathrynmurray6297 - just going to recommend that you work on your listening skills instead of jumping to wrong conclusions and voicing slander.
Also 1 Peter 3 talks about submitting to an unbelieving husband...it's commanded. Doesn't mention abuse...so you don't have any right to read that into it.
Please define Physical abuse. This needs to be clear and direct as so many of these situations with these poor woman (and men) are not so black and white