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 for them 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 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.
Jeff's wife speaking... The covering is a symbol of power on the woman's head which shows her submission to her husband and it is for the sake of the angels. Scripture teaches that if a woman is not covered when praying and prophesying, it is as if where shorn or shaven. We are asked the question, "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" And then Paul goes into the nature argument. There are quite clearly two coverings, long hair and a material covering for praying and prophesying.
@@amandadiaz6834 The reason you understood it as such is because this exactly what it’s saying. For 2,000 years, women have been wearing head coverings. The Jewish women still wear it, the Muslim women adopted it from the Jewish and Christians and people are going to try and tell me that we now have it right?
im not sure if you’ll see this but i wanted to say thank you so much. your videos are straight to the point and easy to understand. i appreciate your video and you. God bless ✝️✨
why does God's law vary from culture to culture? why is God's law not universal? If breaking God's law is sin and the weight of sin is death then shouldn't the rules be the same for everyone? Or does God have favorites that he gives easy laws to and not so favored (I'm looking at you Corinthians) that he gives stricter laws to? Also IF this is a command that only applies to the Corinthians because it was written in a letter addressed to them then why should we assume that any of 1st or 2nd Corinthians apply to any of us? Seems like you're picking and choosing in God's divine infallible word.
Lucas Phillips If I write a letter to my sister who lives in Canada, then another to my friend who lives in Florida, will I be discussing the same topics in the letter? What if I ask about the weather? Will the weather always be the same in those two places? Of course not. The same is with the culture. The Bible has always included the cultural aspects of the people it is discussing because it is important that you understand how these people were living at that time so you can understand why they are being addressed the way they are. If my sister in Canada is struggling with anger, and my friend in Florida is struggling with jealousy, why would I address a letter to them that talks about the same concepts? I may have some similarities in the letter in regards to general things you should be doing in your walk with Christ to stay strong and encouraged, but if these people are dealing with a specific heart issue, then I’m going to give them instruction based on that specific issue. That doesn’t mean if I say to my sister in Canada that she needs to rebuke the spirit of offense and seek the peace of the Lord, that my friend in Florida who is dealing with jealousy now needs to do that as well. I mean they can, but is the solution I gave for my sister going to be the same solution to my friends problem? Most likely not. My friend would most likely need to recognize that they have a Spirit of envy and be reminded of why we shouldn’t lust after what someone else is graced to carry. This is why understanding the differences between a group of people is important as well. Each culture has a different struggle and Paul would simply address how those struggles should be corrected in his letter. That doesn’t mean that God was showing favoritism, that shows that God is a God of order and he’s not going to ask you to do something that would make people think you were possibly a prostitute or following a pagan religion. The point of the new testament was to spread the gospel, and the people of Corinth were not going to listen to people who could possibly just be spreading another pagan religion. So they were instructed to do it in line with the culture, so that the word might go forth. God always gave instruction that made way for the gospel to be spread, and for them, that was how. (Also idk about you but I wouldn’t want to be associated with the pagan people of the city. I wouldn’t even want to look like them. As Christians we’re meant to be set apart and walk differently, and the corinthians could now do...just that)
St. Paul tell us exactly to who he was addressing his letter to the Corintnians: "To the church (assembly) of God which is in Corinth, to those consecrated and purified and made holy in Christ Jesus, [who are] selected and called to be saints (God's people), together with all those **who in any place** call upon and give honor to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, **both their Lord** and ours:" 1 Corinthians 1:2 (AMPLIFIED BIBLE)
quran (chapter 112) -Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; -Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; -He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; -And there is none like unto Him.
@@tubaashraf7108 we know, thanks for preaching. If this Allah were to be the God who created the universe, he would have known he is "One In Essence" but "Three In Person". But since Allah is not the God who created the universe, we don't care what Allah says of himself or in the Quran. Come to Jesus,
Just because that particular Scripture was written as a letter to the Corinthians if start@ the start of Corinthians you would see the Disciple/apostle says to My Brothers concerning what is commanded of us.
Here’s my experience- for a couple of weeks I was reading my Bible and saying my night prayers and after enough time the Lord sent me a dream to let me know that I was not honoring him, and it is confirmed by the Bible. So instructions are in the Bible that we may know how to honor God. There are instructions for both gender’s so if you just want to do what you want, in the end the Bible will not defend you cause you didn’t have faith to follow the instructions of it. God has corrected me on dressing, has talked to my mom about wanting her to wear dresses, many other believers have heard from God about the outside adornment of themselves- God always brings us back to His commandments ☝️.
Agree I had an experience after praying .. God made it really clear to me in my spirit that whenever I came into prayer in my alone time with him .. to go into a head covering and when I’m at church. I believe your experience because God always talk to us no matter what anyone says.
@@PPacheco831 yes Patricia but understand that long hair for a woman IS her head covering…you are the temple of God and we are to pray without ceasing. That is why long hair on a woman is a constant covering for her. 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.
@@erikhaldeman5802 Amen you are so right. The funny thing is Paul was never speaking about a head covering but that the woman should cover her head in long hair. I mean even by tallying the amount of times hair and veils is mentioned you would have 7 to 0. In the KJV hair is directly mentioned 3 times and then 4 times indirectly with the words shorn and shaven which is what you do to hair. People have misinterpreted this passage for too long.
Wow , this dude just changed Bible word in two minutes & some of u like it because u actually don’t wanna follow that ☺️. Read by yourself... it’s very clear. ...& it doesn’t depend on your choice it His choice & u need to follow ( if u want).
Head coverings isn't in our culture because of the feminist movement in the early 1900s. Before that all woman wore fancy hats because of this verse. Imagine the Bible says you should wear a head covering and you somehow explain it away that you really don't need to before the feminist movement made it common.
Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Acts 2:38
People who say, "But Jesus had long hair" need to consider that they're most likely looking at a painting from the Renaissance and that the model in several of such portraits is Cesare Borgia, son of Pope Alexander VI, in the era when Popes could have a wife and family. Not to mention that Jesus wouldn't have appeared as a Spaniard but rather as a Palestinian Jew ("Palestine" comes from "Philistine" and it was the Romans who changed Judea to "Philistinia" as an insult to the Jews, based on their knowledge of the Torah/Old Testament. David the Giant-Slayer did in fact appeal to the Roman sensibilities and myths. Man vs the Titans and such.)
Exactly! “His head and His hair were white like white wool, [glistening white] like snow; and His [all-seeing] eyes were [flashing] like a flame of fire [piercing into my being].” Revelation 1:14 AMP www.bible.com/1588/rev.1.14.amp Notice the scripture never mentions length but only texture. Paul would not teach what wouldn’t matter.
Most misconceptions come from the catholic hand. The ball earth is also a catholic invention to deceive. Just like the "theory" of evolution and the big big "theory". Now we are seeing the virus "theory" being used to deceive and manipulate.
God wouldn't even mention head covering in the Bible, if it was not important to Him... teaching that certain scriptures are no longer relevant for today, is UN-biblical....... God says, ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be PERFECT, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (there's no indication of "time" or cultural exemption mentioned in that verse at all) Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever, and what was wrong to do hundreds or even thousands of years ago, is still wrong to do now. Also, as another commenter here has already pointed out, .."what was written afore time was written for our learning...! If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is NO light in them. Isaiah 8:20. We can't "KEEP" God's word by ignoring it, crossing it out, or exempting it because it doesn't suit us, ..we'd do well to remember that Man does not live by bread alone, but by "EVERY WORD ' that proceeds from the mouth of God.
Paul mentions the traditions he delivered to Corinth in verse 2. Back in chapter 4:17 Paul mentions that he sent Timothy to remind them of his ways that were taught in every church. It is hard for me to see it as local culture if the traditions were taught the same everywhere. Right?
Victoria Gibbons Withers It is important that we talk about what God does by what he has told in his Word. Can you direct me to a passage or area in the Bible from which you draw this conclusion?
Hi Robin, I think you've hit a key snag in the cultural position, and the reference to universal Church practice is also at the end of the passage, so it is in the immediate context as well. What's your conclusion then?
Hi Trixie, I have pondered this passage for years. It does look like a command for men to uncover their heads and women to cover their heads. Paul changes direction in verse 13 to show a parallel to Nature and mentioning hair length. I have been wondering if verse 16 refers only to the natural hair length, and not verses 1-12. What do you think?
@@robinbarry8200 Interesting. Rereading, I remain unconvinced of that :) I don't see what the Corinthians could even contend with in a question of natural hair length, which is introduced only as a confirmatory argument for the need for a covering. If a woman is to be contentious, is it more likely to be about needing to be veiled or objecting to growing her hair out..? Also, what "such custom" would he mean, women having long hair? It would eviscerate his whole reason for mentioning hair, which is the argument "nature covers her, therefore let her cover herself". It would turn it from "we have no such custom as women praying uncovered" to "we have no such custom of women not having long hair". But if he is writing to them knowing their women _don't_ have long hair, then he can't use the argument that nature has given them a covering, therefore they need another. The final reason is the primary theme even of the references to hair is the artificial covering, so in that light, it doesn't seem to me that Paul _is_ changing direction, he is merely bolstering his former argument (contrasting v4) - almost as an afterthought - before he drops the hammer of universal Church practice to round off the passage. Is there anything obviously wrong with that reasoning?
Thora Adam hi pls. Learn & understand this verse: Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
Paul is not the author of what he writes, GOD is... and God says that ..NO prophecy of the scripture is of ANY private interpretation. 2Peter 1:20 God has worded the Bible exactly how HE wants it to read, and we are given some serious warnings (in Revelation) about altering it's meaning by placing our "own understanding" upon what we read. Proverbs 3:5. We are to prayerfully ask the Holy Spirit to guide us, and be found "rightly dividing" the word of truth. 2Timothy 2:15 ..Here a little there a little.. Isaiah 28:10 & 13 ..This is how we get "God's interpretation" ..for God is not the author of confusion, He wants us to understand Him. .....so, unless God specifically mentions "wigs," it's probably safe to dismiss that idea.
@Thora Adam what does it mean like a woman though? would shoulder length be considered that or do you mean long like down the back like some men have (which coincidentally ends up looking homosexual) I also ask because I believe at that time long (shoulder length) hair was somewhat common among men and extremely long hair (down the legs) was common for women
St. Paul tell us exactly to whom he was addressing his letter to the Corinthians: "To the church (assembly) of God which is in Corinth, to those consecrated and purified and made holy in Christ Jesus, [who are] selected and called to be saints (God's people), together with all those **who in any place** call upon and give honor to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, **both their Lord** and ours:" 1 Corinthians 1:2 (AMPLIFIED BIBLE)
1 CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 11 VERSE 5 TO 6 VERSE 5 : " BUT EVERY WOMAN WHO PRAYS OR PROPHESIED WITH HER HEAD UNCOVERED DISHONORS HER HEAD _ IT IS THE SAME AS HAVING HER HEAD SHAVED .' VERSE 6 : " FOR IF A WOMAN DOES NOT COVER HER HEAD , SHE MIGHT AS WELL HAVE HER HAIR CUT OFF , BUT IF IT IS A DISGRACE FOR A WOMAN TO HAVE HER HAIR CUT OFF OR HER HEAD SHAVED , THEN SHE SHOULD COVER HER HEAD .'
I looked up every word in these scriptures about hair long hair did not translate out to uncut hair in the Jewish customs long hair for a woman was from the tip of her finger to the bend of her elbow was considered long hair and short hair for men was like a palms of his hand length. Is the strong's concordance not correct?
The corinthians teaching on Head coverings were countercultural even in pauls day. Emporers wore a head covering before religious acts of worship, yet paul tells men not to cover. Its not a cultural thing otherwise paul would make a cultural argument, instead he argues from the order of creation. Unless ur willing to also say his apeal to the order of creation was also cultural on the issue of female pastors😬😜….idk how many other ways paul couldve argued it. 1 He says he taught them the tradition. 1 he apeals to the order of creation. 3 he apeals to nature. 4 he apeals to the sake of angels. 5 he apeals to modesty, calling it her power. 6 he apeals to the universal teaching of the church
If it was only limited to the context of the Corinthian beleivers, then why does Paul say, " If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-nor do the churches of God." ? He is saying here this is the practice of all churches of God because it was not just cultural. He is laying out a pattern of God and how we were created to represent or display that pattern on earth. This is an area where OUR culture Has supplanted the Word of God.
Is Paul not saying that it is a shame for a woman to not be under the authority of either her father or or husband? In Isaiah 4:1, the seven women are asking the man to take away their shame. It seems there is a dearth of men who are willing to marry them, much like what we see today in the church.
Well very bad interpretation as yous all cherry pick what you like. Explain vers 6 from 1 Corinthians 11. We know and even to this day the Jewish women cover their head so it wasnt just a thing for Corint.
Thank you for saying this, I am not Christian but I always wondered why Christian women don’t cover up although it says it in their scriptures. Also The Virgin Mary was covered from head to toe just like some Jewish women and Muslim women do today
God forgive me if this is wrong and I pray in Jesus name that I be corrected if I am wrong. But he is right if you look at 1 corinthians 5 But a woman dishonors her head* the star means (or dishonors her husband) but if you continue to read it also says her glory is her hair that is been given as a head covering. (along those lines) So it also is best judgement. If you cover your head in church its fine nothing wrong with it. I might once I ever get married! :)
There was no Old Testament law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. (The priests were required to wear turbans.) So it was not part of the culture. There are a number of scriptures that show that. Reply if desired. Nature, because the 'covering' is the hair. Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. -NASB version
David, Haman & other men covered their heads while mourning or when they were ashamed [humiliated] (2 Sam. 15:30; Esther 6:12; Jer. 14:3-4).So that could be one reason why a man praying with his head covered would be disgraceful.
Paul never says anything about sexuality. Where do modern-day theologians even get this from? Paul only talks about headship. Paul is pretty blunt, if he was talking about sexuality he would have just said so like he did in so many other passages. Headship never changed. God, Jesus, man, women. So this hasn't change. Plus Paul says head covering is the practice in the churches of God, not just Corinth. (1 Cor 11:16) Plus Paul praises them for remembering what he has already taught them in vrs 2, and then instructs them about headship and authority in vrs 3. He even uses Adam and Eve as examples. Also the word for covering/ uncovering in 1 Cor 11:4, 5, 6, 7, and 13 all use the same word, katakaluptó/ akatakaluptos, which means to cover or veil or uncover, unveil. This same word is used for the veil in the Temple that separated mankind from Gods holiness and glory. The word used in verse 15 that Paul uses as an example for a woman's hair, is the word is "peribolaion" which means, a wrapper, mantel, cloak or covering. That which can be thrown around. (Think of women tossing their hair about.) These are not the same Greek words. We should use different English words to distinguish between the two.
Praise the Lord I always rejoice when I see those that receive the simplicity of women covering there heads and don’t try to explain it away. Might I add that the KJV is Gods word for English speakers and it isn’t necessary to use two different words, the scripture is clear to those who are Jesus’s sheep and hear his voice, there are many who (as Peter rightly said) wrest the words of Paul to there own destruction, and rather be taught of God they heap unto themselves false teachers having itching ears. I would like to share these channels with you that I know will bless you if you love Gods word: ua-cam.com/users/EarthenVessels ua-cam.com/users/TheWordprophet
yes it does in a way because the WEARING of a head covering. But Christian women do it more so to put the focus on God so he can be more glorified through Jesus Christ. As to muslim women who use it for modesty and loyalty of their spouse.
Jeff's wife speaking... We cover our heads first and foremost because God wants us to. The covering is a symbol of power on the woman's head which shows her submission to her husband and it is for the sake of the angels. Scripture teaches that if a woman is not covered when praying and prophesying, it is as if where shorn or shaven.
joe Mama Muslim women cover themselves because God asked them to, that’s the main reason and it’s a good enough reason for them to do that. If they wore it because of their husbands then unmarried Muslim women wouldn’t cover up.
"Is not instinct also teaching you that a man, when his hair is erect (qa-em standing), he has disgrace (or reproach)? And when a woman grows out (dam-rab-bai) her hair, she has praise (or glory); because her hair was given to her for (or in the place of) a covering (or veil). But if [any] one argues against these things, we don't have a custom like this, and neither [does] the churches of God." (1 Cor. 11:14-15 Peshitta). The Aramaic text says something quite different than the English translations and Dr. Lamsa's translation, which retained and polished up the KJV text here. The Aramaic text says that a man is not to have erect hair, NOT "long hair" (Lamsa, KJV). Qa-em means: “standing, erect and upright.” The next word after long is the word sa-ạra, meaning hair. The Aramaic text has two words here while the Greek text just has one word. Also, the Aramaic text of the next verse reads: , "And when a woman grows out her hair, she has praise (or glory) ..." Paul isn't relating a custom where a woman has to have long (Lamsa, KJV) hair; but that she should have hair, regardless of whether the length is short or long. Paul earlier had said that if a woman prays or prophesies when her head is unveiled, than she is equal to a woman that has her head shaved or shorn (1 Cor. 11:5). She shouldn't have a disfigured or bald head like a slave or captive (Deut. 21:12). Gri-a "shaved or shaved one" has both an adjective and a noun meaning. It can refer to a monk; or contemptuously, to a slave. That is why Paul said: "...but if it is a shameful thing (or hideous) for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered [with hair]. (1 Cor. 11:6)." I want to reiterate that Paul is discussing a "custom" that is non-binding on women. It is an opinion that he had that was based on the times. Paul hinted others may not agree with his opinion and hence this custom isn't obligatory or a command from God. Not much else is known about this custom. I personally don't mind if a woman has a bald head if she wants that. It's her choice and it isn't hurting anyone.
2 years late but she is probably referencing men who are under the nazarite vow (the same vow samson took) Its a vow where you cant drink alcohaul and you cant cut your hair.
(corinthians 11:6) For if a woman does not cover her head, SHE MIGHT AS WELL HAVE HER HAIR CUT OFF. but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man
Please clarify this for me, most of the things that were written in the Old Testament are not done and practiced after Christ right? Like offering a sacrifice to God by killing animals. Well about the story of Samson, it was written in the Old Testament. 1 Corinthians is New Testament.
Jeff's wife speaking... The covering is a symbol of power on the woman's head which shows her submission to her husband and it is for the sake of the angels. Scripture teaches that if a woman is not covered when praying and prophesying, it is as if where shorn or shaven. We are asked the question, "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" And then Paul goes into the nature argument. There are quite clearly two coverings, long hair and a material covering for praying and prophesying.
They Ben, thanks for the video. First one I've watched of yours. However I would have you go a bit deeper regards to the covering. It may be true about the culture, prostitutes and homosexual practice. However verse 4 and 5 is so clear in every English translation. Man should not cover. Women should cover...while praying for prophesying. Point is Paul does not say anything about the culture. He could. He does many other places. But he just doesn't here. There's much more to this. But look even at history up until very recently the practice was found. And still today the military, baseball teams church (hopefully) men who are covered uncover for prayer. Women do not. Rather women have had Easter bonnets, stylish hats and many other veils even when getting married, up until, you guessed it, very recently. If the culture is the argument, then it's the current culture post feminism in the 1960s that changed this ancient practice and now we today are feeling it and trying to rationalize
Strongly disagree, if you look at the end of where Paul talks about head coverings he says if anyone questions any of this(head covering, long har, etc.) we have no such customs nor do the churches of God. Meaning we have no custom to wear head coverings in Christianity or how our hair looks or it’s length.
When Paul is speaking that even in nature you do not see males having long hair. What nature is he talking about? It does not make sense that it is the nature of the animal kingdom, because we see the opposite in many species, lions, peacocks, roosters, birds in general. What other nature is left? And it does not make sense to take that verse and not include it in context with the rest. Although it has been common for men to have short hair and women long in many cultures and throughout many years, this is not a good point to take because there are still many other cultures where this practice is not true and is not seen as unmanly or unwomanly. Time changes cultures. In Western culture today you don't see masculine men in robes or skirts, but in ancient times that's what every man wore. It would be considered as a feminine act to wear a skirt now but not then. But if they had pants would that mean the men would start wearing them and the women wouldn't? No, because even in ancient times there existed trousers that were commonly worn by horseback riders only. So it's after knowing all this, it is the most reasonable conclusion that Paul was speaking of culture. This being said and known, this does not mean that because we have an understanding of why some things are considered masculine and others not, that it means we can pursue things because "oh, well that's just how society now views it but in reality it isn't like this in other places or wasn't before". Live by how your society views as what is masculine for men and what is feminine for women. Just like as we should live and obey governments no matter if we disagree with them or not up until it is no longer viable for a Christian, meaning up until it means disobeying God. Longer hair and beards meant more maintenance for the man who does physical labor, but being the provider/the person who does the physical labor there is no time for that maintenance. And throughout time that's where man has been. So short hair is associated with that role man had. So it's not that short hair means masculinity, it means more efficient. Look at the men throughout time and cultures who didn't do physical labor. Pursuers of knowledge and wisdom, scholars, mathematicians, etc. All, if not most, had long hair and beards.
@@Joshua-on2du No brother, what he meant was that if anyone wants to argue about it, he says we don't have that in our custom, meaning that it was not something to argue about. It's supposed to be done.
Victor Benjamin I will be glad to do so...but right now I’m preparing my sermon for tomorrow. I’ll put together some scripture with the Greek meaning and share them with you. God bless and have great church tomorrow 👍🏻
@@victorbenjamin852 The issue at Corinth was not whether long or short hair was an acceptable covering, but whether or not the head was covered with a veil or hat. This is proven by the following: ----"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head" (v. 4). The distinction here is obviously not between short and long-haired brethren, but rather between men with covered and uncovered heads. Contentious sisters were provided with an alter native: either cover the head or be shorn or shaven ( v. 6). But if long hair were the intended covering, then the Apostle's alternative is meaningless. "Cover" ( -ed, -ing) in the A.V. disguises the fact that different words for "to cover" are used in the Greek text. The distinction between two of these, "katakalupto" and "peribolaion" proves that a veil or head covering, and not long hair is intended. These words are as follows: "Katakalupto" ( 'kata' = 'fully'; 'kalupto' = 'to cover up'), "to cover fully" ( Yg). This word occurs through out verses 5- 13 and is translated "veil" in the R.S.V.; Nestle and Marshall's "Interlinear Greek-English New Testament'' and many other versions. These translations make it plain that the issue relates to a head covering, not the growth of hair, long or short. "Peribolaion" ('peri' = 'around'; 'ballo' = 'to throw, cast'), "something cast around" ( Y g). The long hair of a woman is her glory - like a mantle cast around ( v. 15) .(8) But this is not to be displayed in the assembly of believers before the presence of God. The intended covering in the ecclesial meeting is the "katakalupto" ---- the head covering or veil. When Paul refers to the long hair given to the woman as her glory, he is drawing a parallel with what "nature" or common-sense suggests. This can be seen from the following: MAN long hair is degrading. WOMAN long hair is her glory. Therefore. a parallel is evident [natural] with the spiritual a man ought not to cover his head a woman ought to cover her head. 4. The mistaken interpretation (9) evident in the question results from reading verse 15 as if it were the conclusion of the argument rather than an additional appeal to common-sense by a parallel: what "nature itself teaches.".
@@markgodbey3315 My girlfriend who is Messianic Jew in faith says she prefers/like Men w/biblically long hair...my confusion is what is she talking about?
Sh 11 was talking about hair only head not talking about today time. Man made this change. Not going against you. Just trying to figure this out. In my area it’s a strong subject. With some anger. Yes anger.
I’m sorry but I have to disagree with you . I had my personal experience with God when I was led in my spirit and made it really clear whenever I come to into prayer in my alone time .. to always come to him in a head covering.. and when I’m at church.. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. God always talks and he shows us and I came from a background where I always pray uncovered until I started keeping his commandments which is his law.My changed from that point. We must understand the context.
This is why i left christianity ✝️ a long time ago just listen to this man says you dont need to cover your hair 😆 and if we go to 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 it says to cover you hair in his bible .. Then he says its for another group of people, so if its for another people why are u believing in the book that is talking to another group of people ?
Why are you laughing for leaving? You abandoned God the creator of the universe who made you in His image . Who loves you more than you'll ever know . Who desires to restore your soul. The wicked , like to keep there secrets in the dark, whoever doesn't want to shed light will remain in the dark. In the end , every dark secret that you and everyone else has , will be brought to light.
1 Cor 11 is pretty clear that a woman should cover or veil her head in public worship. The word for covering in 1 Corthians 11:4, 5,6,7, 13, is the word, katakalýptō, from katá, "down, and kalýptō, "to cover"-cover down, to make appropriate (complete), i.e. to wear a veil. It is the root word used for the veil that separated the Holy of holies from the priests. But only in vrs 15, where Paul is giving an example from nature is a different word used, "but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering." This is different word from the others for "cover"= "peribolaion," that which is tossed around or a mantel that can be thrown around the shoulders and body (As in when a women tosses or throws her hair around). Cover in the first few verses of 1 Cor 11, should really be translated veil as that is the proper Greek word used. Katakalýptō was NEVER used in Greek for hair. This is where we get the English saying, "Let your hair down." Becuase during the "sexual revolution" women let their hair down out of their buns, uncovered their hair and shook it back and forth. Which is very alluring to man. If hair if the covering as some people say, can men be bald or take their hair off and on? No obviously not. This is why men take their hats off in church or at baseball games, etc. Also, since woman's hair is her glory, it should be covered because we are not to show our glory when we come into the presence of the LORD. Only the LORD'S glory should be on display. Not woman's. Plus the veil or covering is it be a symbol of us coming under God's authority to the angels. And since all women have hair, that is not a symbol. We put a covering or veil on our head as a symbol that we are coming under authority to remind the fallen, and not fallen angles that we are in obedient to God's order. (As Satan rebelled because he wanted more authority). Also it's also because angels are in church services and they can't see our hearts, but they can see a veil. Angels partake in the gathering of the saints and want to look intently into our worship time. (1 Tim 5:21, 1 peter 1:12, Rev 2:1, 2:8, 2:12, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 3:14). This was not a cultural thing in Corinath. There's is NO historical accuracy to this statement that is often pushed as truth. This is a lie that has created into the church in only the last 100 years. Headcovering was actually counter cultural. Jewish and Corinathian men covered during prayer and worship, and Corinathian and Jewish women uncovered. Up until only the last two generations woman covered in Church. All of our grandmothers would have covered in church. This is why the Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, the orthodox churches, a lot of African congratations, and Messiniac Beleivers, etc still cover their hair. Here's some verses in the OT about head covering. Hope these help. Isaiah 47:1-2. Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones and grind flour, "put off your veil", strip off your robe, uncover your legs, pass through the rivers. (So as we can see, even virgins were to keep their heads covered and save their hair for their husbands. Otherwise it is like they are showing all their nakedness). Numbers 5:18. Then the priest shall stand the woman before the LORD, "uncover the woman’s head," and put the offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse. Also Genesis 20:16 says in the Hebrew Then to Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; indeed this is "a covering for her eyes" (to put back on her wedding covering) you before all who are with you and before everybody.” Thus she was rebuked. From what I understand In Genesis 24:65. Rebekah covers herself because the bridal price has already been paid. 2 vrs later we see Isaac take Rebekah bright away into his tent. There was no wedding ceremony. Her covering herself was an outward show of her marriage to Isaac. Since they were married he was allowed to take her right away into his tent and "uncover" her.
So you're using the old testament to justify the new ok. Question so all the bible was speaking to a certain people, not us the question is why are we following the Bible?
What it sounds like it is like when Jesus said you search the scriptures because in them you believe you have life but you refuse to come to me and being more righteous than the scribes. You can take in the bread and water of Yeshua and use it in a dishonorable way.
MOUNTAIN FORGE yea, recently I read the verse and I have been trying to keep it short. I’m not sure if I’ve read it before. My walk has been pretty unique though, I’ve had a few teachings and sayings in my head that I didn’t remember studying or hearing but as I tried to study the Bible they were confirmed to be true teachings.
Jesus: don't judge outwardly, why do you worry about clothes. Become one flesh with your wife. Modern "Christ"ians: PUT ON YOUR HEAD SCARF AND SIT DOWN WOMAN
Nothing changes the "Word of God" "3 But I would have you know, that the *head [Chief : Supreme] of every man is Christ; and the *head of the woman is the man; and the *head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 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. 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. 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. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." 1 Cor 11:3-9 (KJV) 1 Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If she has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut his off each time before prayers, or of course be bald.
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
Hello Hannah Snow-millican. Can you please expand on this? Do you know where in the Bible the verse is you are referring to? I would appreciate it. Thank you in advance.
Not cultural at all , even the Protestant fathers taught it wayyy after Corinthians /Paul ! The angels are still there ! The headship is still supposed to be there ! Most all women veiled or at least wore hats in all denominations before the hyped up feminist' movement in the 1960's bucked up against anything and everything male headship , so as most churches do thru time is end up submitting to the dictates of the secular culture around them as not to offend out FEAR OF MAN !
@@deebonash1495 Verse from your scripture (Bible): (My father is greater than I) "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." - John 14:28 (Head of Christ is God) "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God." - 1 Corinthians 11:3
@@ahmadfuad3910 okay you're Muslim i see why it confuses you. i hope this is clear in understanding ill try to keep it short as possible. please bare youre assuming Jesus cant be Co-equal to the father in essence if the father is greater than "he". But youre ignoring the fact that the term (greater) in english or greek etc, can have 1 or 2 meanings. someone who is better in essence or in rank. im greater than my dog not only in essence as a human but also in rank and position. My boss is greater than me, the president is greater than the vice president. me, my boss, president and vice president are all fully humans we have the same dignity and value in the eyes of the biblical God. they can NOT be better than another in essence of NATURE, were all equal. (When Jesus said, The father is greater than I, did he mean in essence? or did he mean The father is greater than him by virtue of status in heaven? because when Christ said this, he was on earth and had assumed the status ON EARTH and had the status of a servant YOU NEED THE CONTEXT. that can mean the chapter itself, the chapter before it or the book as a whole (so we can get context JOHN 14 v 12-14 --------------------------------------- JOHN 14 V 13-14 Jesus said to the disciples , truly "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater (meizona) things than these, because I am going to the Father." notice Jesus said greater than he's been doing... same greek word.... can NOT mean greater in QUALITY....It means QUANTITY ... and they will be doing the same kinds of miracles... its all in the same sentence.... the disciples spread throughout the entire earth, reached to more people, preached the gospel to more nations and did more miracles than Jesus did while he was on earth, so greater here can only mean Quantity not Quality and importanty Jesus gave the reason why they will make more miracles than him. BECAUSE HE IS GOING TO THE FATHER... 13 and 14 he said (whatever you ask "IN MY NAME, THIS I WILL DO" notice he did say (the father will do it, no he said he himself will do it.) he says pray to him directly, it would be blasphemy if he was a creature, the quran and bible agree all petitions and invocations must be directed to God alone because only he can answer. Jesus is presupposing the omni attributes in order to know when where and what they are praying for and doesnt matter how many are praying to him.... he is saying he will answer them all... ------- Lastly JOHN 14:23 (staying in context) "Jesus replied, ‘If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and WE will come to him and make OUR home with him.’ .... Both the Father and the Son make their home with all true believers! Christ is clearly claiming co-equality with the Father since he is present with every believer in the same way that the Father is! THERE'S more and more and more examples....
Yes, and in regards to defining us as male and female (like there for today, there are certain haircuts and ways of dressing that define us as male or female.) For example UA-cam video just popped on my feed about a female barber but the hairstyles were confusing because they were hip male cuts for girls. Which I think is kind of cultural thing that Paul was trying to address in his day. The same way we have to address the transgender, etc type of thing now in our day.
@@RenewalCreations If you are right, then a) why didn't Paul say that was his reason and b) why did he give other theologically weighty reasons (Adam & Eve, argument from visible glory, reference to angels, ...)?
the husband has to submit and obey his wife just as much as the woman her husband 1 cor 11;16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. it was the tradition and custon and culture of those times. nothing else in 1 pet 3 we read about women coming to the church meetings with plaited hair so women did not cover the hair. thirdly, the Bible says that everything has to be gounded on at least TWO witnesses. there is only ONE place in the Bible where you read about the head covering and that is also not very clear since we read in the very passage that the hair of women is their covering. in the new testament we dont follow the traditions of old. we follow Lord Yeshu who set us free from the external things. now the reality is Christ Himself. not the things on the outside those who wear head coverings rely on the Flesh which is SIN and that is the WRONG REBELLION... thats bondage to sin...
No scripture was read that support what he says. Did he read any scripture about Sampson? No. He said, "oh this one person in the bible had long hair, see see that means this part of the bible is wrong". You need to pray for understanding before you pick that book up again, sir.
Right! Paul even says if anybody seems contentious about this (which people obviously do especially in these last of the last days) that none of the churches of God have any other custom than this. Seems simple!
This is more or less Paul's personal opinion. As he states in verse 16, also in verse 13 he tells us to judge among ourselves. When you put the whole of 1 Cor. 11:1-16 into context I think perhaps most are missing the point, it's really not about head coverings or the length of ones hair... but rather we, men and woman, are in need of each other. If you care to give it a reread with a focus on verse's 11&12 I wonder if you'll be able to gleam this from the whole of the passage and learn what's really being said. Many seem to teach incorrectly on these verses and make much of something that just isn't so.
Let the Word of God be true and every man a liar. The Bible says it is a shame for a woman to have her head uncovered. A christian woman should wear a head covering.
Women had long hair down to the ground in biblical Times . Men with shoulder hair length is normal in biblical Times. Yeshua does have shoulder hair length hair. 2 Samuel 14:26 Absalom Cut his hair. Its okay for men to have shoulder length hair but not to have UNCUT hair like the women used to have ( hair 3 feet on the ground ; never cut!
I think shoulder length hair pretty. Don't believe it's a sin. Now when it's to the middle of your back it might be. There is a part of me that always wanted to grow my hair long to see how long it would get
Women had long hair down to the ground in biblical Times . Men with shoulder hair length is normal in biblical Times. Yeshua does have shoulder hair length hair. 2 Samuel 14:26 Absalom Cut his hair. Its okay for men to have shoulder length hair but not to have UNCUT hair like the women used to have ( hair 3 feet on the ground ; never cut!
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 for them 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 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.
Let's not try to amend the Bible to fit in our lives but let's amend ourselves to fit into the bible if truly we want to be Christians
Jeff's wife speaking... The covering is a symbol of power on the woman's head which shows her submission to her husband and it is for the sake of the angels. Scripture teaches that if a woman is not covered when praying and prophesying, it is as if where shorn or shaven. We are asked the question, "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" And then Paul goes into the nature argument. There are quite clearly two coverings, long hair and a material covering for praying and prophesying.
@@amandadiaz6834
The reason you understood it as such is because this exactly what it’s saying. For 2,000 years, women have been wearing head coverings. The Jewish women still wear it, the Muslim women adopted it from the Jewish and Christians and people are going to try and tell me that we now have it right?
im not sure if you’ll see this but i wanted to say thank you so much. your videos are straight to the point and easy to understand. i appreciate your video and you. God bless ✝️✨
why does God's law vary from culture to culture? why is God's law not universal? If breaking God's law is sin and the weight of sin is death then shouldn't the rules be the same for everyone? Or does God have favorites that he gives easy laws to and not so favored (I'm looking at you Corinthians) that he gives stricter laws to?
Also IF this is a command that only applies to the Corinthians because it was written in a letter addressed to them then why should we assume that any of 1st or 2nd Corinthians apply to any of us? Seems like you're picking and choosing in God's divine infallible word.
Lucas Phillips If I write a letter to my sister who lives in Canada, then another to my friend who lives in Florida, will I be discussing the same topics in the letter? What if I ask about the weather? Will the weather always be the same in those two places? Of course not. The same is with the culture. The Bible has always included the cultural aspects of the people it is discussing because it is important that you understand how these people were living at that time so you can understand why they are being addressed the way they are. If my sister in Canada is struggling with anger, and my friend in Florida is struggling with jealousy, why would I address a letter to them that talks about the same concepts? I may have some similarities in the letter in regards to general things you should be doing in your walk with Christ to stay strong and encouraged, but if these people are dealing with a specific heart issue, then I’m going to give them instruction based on that specific issue. That doesn’t mean if I say to my sister in Canada that she needs to rebuke the spirit of offense and seek the peace of the Lord, that my friend in Florida who is dealing with jealousy now needs to do that as well. I mean they can, but is the solution I gave for my sister going to be the same solution to my friends problem? Most likely not. My friend would most likely need to recognize that they have a Spirit of envy and be reminded of why we shouldn’t lust after what someone else is graced to carry. This is why understanding the differences between a group of people is important as well. Each culture has a different struggle and Paul would simply address how those struggles should be corrected in his letter. That doesn’t mean that God was showing favoritism, that shows that God is a God of order and he’s not going to ask you to do something that would make people think you were possibly a prostitute or following a pagan religion. The point of the new testament was to spread the gospel, and the people of Corinth were not going to listen to people who could possibly just be spreading another pagan religion. So they were instructed to do it in line with the culture, so that the word might go forth. God always gave instruction that made way for the gospel to be spread, and for them, that was how. (Also idk about you but I wouldn’t want to be associated with the pagan people of the city. I wouldn’t even want to look like them. As Christians we’re meant to be set apart and walk differently, and the corinthians could now do...just that)
St. Paul tell us exactly to who he was addressing his letter to the Corintnians:
"To the church (assembly) of God which is in Corinth, to those consecrated and purified and made holy in Christ Jesus, [who are] selected and called to be saints (God's people), together with all those **who in any place** call upon and give honor to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, **both their Lord** and ours:"
1 Corinthians 1:2 (AMPLIFIED BIBLE)
quran (chapter 112)
-Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
-Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
-He begetteth not, nor is He
begotten;
-And there is none like unto Him.
@@tubaashraf7108 we know, thanks for preaching.
If this Allah were to be the God who created the universe, he would have known he is "One In Essence" but "Three In Person". But since Allah is not the God who created the universe, we don't care what Allah says of himself or in the Quran.
Come to Jesus,
Just because that particular Scripture was written as a letter to the Corinthians if start@ the start of Corinthians you would see the Disciple/apostle says to My Brothers concerning what is commanded of us.
Times and fashion change but GOD does not change.
Hebrews 13:8 (KJV) Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
That's true
Amen!❤
Here’s my experience- for a couple of weeks I was reading my Bible and saying my night prayers and after enough time the Lord sent me a dream to let me know that I was not honoring him, and it is confirmed by the Bible. So instructions are in the Bible that we may know how to honor God. There are instructions for both gender’s so if you just want to do what you want, in the end the Bible will not defend you cause you didn’t have faith to follow the instructions of it. God has corrected me on dressing, has talked to my mom about wanting her to wear dresses, many other believers have heard from God about the outside adornment of themselves- God always brings us back to His commandments ☝️.
Agree I had an experience after praying .. God made it really clear to me in my spirit that whenever I came into prayer in my alone time with him .. to go into a head covering and when I’m at church.
I believe your experience because God always talk to us no matter what anyone says.
@@PPacheco831 yes Patricia but understand that long hair for a woman IS her head covering…you are the temple of God and we are to pray without ceasing. That is why long hair on a woman is a constant covering for her. 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.
@@erikhaldeman5802 Amen you are so right. The funny thing is Paul was never speaking about a head covering but that the woman should cover her head in long hair. I mean even by tallying the amount of times hair and veils is mentioned you would have 7 to 0. In the KJV hair is directly mentioned 3 times and then 4 times indirectly with the words shorn and shaven which is what you do to hair. People have misinterpreted this passage for too long.
@@GodsWordisTruth-zg1jj Amen! Great word-it is plain in the scripture.
Thank you Ben for taking the time to vlog for us :) I love your listening to your analysis and explanations. You are awesome!!! God bless :)
If we can just decide to stop doing some of its teachings: remember Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.
Amen 🙌🏼
Then why don't you still follow all the laws of the Old Testament?
Wow , this dude just changed Bible word in two minutes & some of u like it because u actually don’t wanna follow that ☺️. Read by yourself... it’s very clear. ...& it doesn’t depend on your choice it His choice & u need to follow ( if u want).
Head coverings isn't in our culture because of the feminist movement in the early 1900s. Before that all woman wore fancy hats because of this verse. Imagine the Bible says you should wear a head covering and you somehow explain it away that you really don't need to before the feminist movement made it common.
Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:38
People who say, "But Jesus had long hair" need to consider that they're most likely looking at a painting from the Renaissance and that the model in several of such portraits is Cesare Borgia, son of Pope Alexander VI, in the era when Popes could have a wife and family. Not to mention that Jesus wouldn't have appeared as a Spaniard but rather as a Palestinian Jew ("Palestine" comes from "Philistine" and it was the Romans who changed Judea to "Philistinia" as an insult to the Jews, based on their knowledge of the Torah/Old Testament. David the Giant-Slayer did in fact appeal to the Roman sensibilities and myths. Man vs the Titans and such.)
Exactly! “His head and His hair were white like white wool, [glistening white] like snow; and His [all-seeing] eyes were [flashing] like a flame of fire [piercing into my being].”
Revelation 1:14 AMP
www.bible.com/1588/rev.1.14.amp
Notice the scripture never mentions length but only texture. Paul would not teach what wouldn’t matter.
Most misconceptions come from the catholic hand. The ball earth is also a catholic invention to deceive. Just like the "theory" of evolution and the big big "theory".
Now we are seeing the virus "theory" being used to deceive and manipulate.
@Christopher Norris Hahaha. A little chubby in the middle, right?
God wouldn't even mention head covering in the Bible, if it was not important to Him... teaching that certain scriptures are no longer relevant for today, is UN-biblical....... God says, ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be PERFECT, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (there's no indication of "time" or cultural exemption mentioned in that verse at all) Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever, and what was wrong to do hundreds or even thousands of years ago, is still wrong to do now. Also, as another commenter here has already pointed out, .."what was written afore time was written for our learning...! If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is NO light in them. Isaiah 8:20. We can't "KEEP" God's word by ignoring it, crossing it out, or exempting it because it doesn't suit us, ..we'd do well to remember that Man does not live by bread alone, but by "EVERY WORD ' that proceeds from the mouth of God.
Paul mentions the traditions he delivered to Corinth in verse 2. Back in chapter 4:17 Paul mentions that he sent Timothy to remind them of his ways that were taught in every church. It is hard for me to see it as local culture if the traditions were taught the same everywhere. Right?
God created me not a man.Men don’t have any kind of authority over me.God didn’t give me a voice to sit in the corner with a head covering
Victoria Gibbons Withers It is important that we talk about what God does by what he has told in his Word. Can you direct me to a passage or area in the Bible from which you draw this conclusion?
Hi Robin, I think you've hit a key snag in the cultural position, and the reference to universal Church practice is also at the end of the passage, so it is in the immediate context as well. What's your conclusion then?
Hi Trixie, I have pondered this passage for years. It does look like a command for men to uncover their heads and women to cover their heads. Paul changes direction in verse 13 to show a parallel to Nature and mentioning hair length. I have been wondering if verse 16 refers only to the natural hair length, and not verses 1-12. What do you think?
@@robinbarry8200 Interesting. Rereading, I remain unconvinced of that :) I don't see what the Corinthians could even contend with in a question of natural hair length, which is introduced only as a confirmatory argument for the need for a covering. If a woman is to be contentious, is it more likely to be about needing to be veiled or objecting to growing her hair out..? Also, what "such custom" would he mean, women having long hair? It would eviscerate his whole reason for mentioning hair, which is the argument "nature covers her, therefore let her cover herself". It would turn it from "we have no such custom as women praying uncovered" to "we have no such custom of women not having long hair". But if he is writing to them knowing their women _don't_ have long hair, then he can't use the argument that nature has given them a covering, therefore they need another. The final reason is the primary theme even of the references to hair is the artificial covering, so in that light, it doesn't seem to me that Paul _is_ changing direction, he is merely bolstering his former argument (contrasting v4) - almost as an afterthought - before he drops the hammer of universal Church practice to round off the passage. Is there anything obviously wrong with that reasoning?
newbee here!! Thanks for this. Was reading this chapter and cannot understand anything. 😇 Godbless ur channel 💖
join the club, evidently no one else, can, either....
Hi, God does not change what is written afore time was written for our learning
Thora Adam hi pls. Learn & understand this verse:
Ecclesiastes 1:9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
I believe that God doesn't change ether his word from the beginning is still the same
yah Goshen yes sir is already settled in heaven
@@ulyssesrebancos1040 yes exactly and God always he keep his promise
yah Goshen I belong to T.O.G.
FCOOLJC
Thanks .
This was a big debate back in the day .
I remember a few woman in our church use to wear it.
I reckon because we are saved by faith alone works are secondary, although it is optimal it is the same as saying Grace before eating
Bible says long hair has been given to her as covering .
@Thora Adam watch this ~ua-cam.com/video/V27gJ-fea08/v-deo.html
Paul was talking about an additional covering.otherwise a man must wear a wig to take of when he is praying.
Paul is not the author of what he writes, GOD is... and God says that ..NO prophecy of the scripture is of ANY private interpretation. 2Peter 1:20 God has worded the Bible exactly how HE wants it to read, and we are given some serious warnings (in Revelation) about altering it's meaning by placing our "own understanding" upon what we read. Proverbs 3:5. We are to prayerfully ask the Holy Spirit to guide us, and be found "rightly dividing" the word of truth. 2Timothy 2:15 ..Here a little there a little.. Isaiah 28:10 & 13 ..This is how we get "God's interpretation" ..for God is not the author of confusion, He wants us to understand Him. .....so, unless God specifically mentions "wigs," it's probably safe to dismiss that idea.
@Thora Adam what does it mean like a woman though? would shoulder length be considered that or do you mean long like down the back like some men have (which coincidentally ends up looking homosexual) I also ask because I believe at that time long (shoulder length) hair was somewhat common among men and extremely long hair (down the legs) was common for women
St. Paul tell us exactly to whom he was addressing his letter to the Corinthians:
"To the church (assembly) of God which is in Corinth, to those consecrated and purified and made holy in Christ Jesus, [who are] selected and called to be saints (God's people), together with all those **who in any place** call upon and give honor to the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, **both their Lord** and ours:"
1 Corinthians 1:2 (AMPLIFIED BIBLE)
1 CORINTHIANS
CHAPTER 11
VERSE 5 TO 6
VERSE 5 : " BUT EVERY WOMAN WHO PRAYS OR PROPHESIED WITH HER HEAD UNCOVERED DISHONORS HER HEAD _ IT IS THE SAME AS HAVING HER HEAD SHAVED .'
VERSE 6 : " FOR IF A WOMAN DOES NOT COVER HER HEAD , SHE MIGHT AS WELL HAVE HER HAIR CUT OFF , BUT IF IT IS A DISGRACE FOR A WOMAN TO HAVE HER HAIR CUT OFF OR HER HEAD SHAVED , THEN SHE SHOULD COVER HER HEAD .'
I looked up every word in these scriptures about hair long hair did not translate out to uncut hair in the Jewish customs long hair for a woman was from the tip of her finger to the bend of her elbow was considered long hair and short hair for men was like a palms of his hand length. Is the strong's concordance not correct?
Wow I absolutely love ur content!!!!! Subscribed! U get straight to the point, quick and concise! Great work!
The corinthians teaching on Head coverings were countercultural even in pauls day. Emporers wore a head covering before religious acts of worship, yet paul tells men not to cover. Its not a cultural thing otherwise paul would make a cultural argument, instead he argues from the order of creation. Unless ur willing to also say his apeal to the order of creation was also cultural on the issue of female pastors😬😜….idk how many other ways paul couldve argued it. 1 He says he taught them the tradition. 1 he apeals to the order of creation. 3 he apeals to nature. 4 he apeals to the sake of angels. 5 he apeals to modesty, calling it her power. 6 he apeals to the universal teaching of the church
so man can wear coverings when praying or prophesying as long as they are not doing it publicly
If it was only limited to the context of the Corinthian beleivers, then why does Paul say, " If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-nor do the churches of God." ? He is saying here this is the practice of all churches of God because it was not just cultural. He is laying out a pattern of God and how we were created to represent or display that pattern on earth. This is an area where OUR culture Has supplanted the Word of God.
So regards men, what your saying is men dont wear hats when they preach or prophecy because it was a culture of that time? Correct?
I’m sorry but does this mean I can’t wear a durag?
Thank you 😊
Is Paul not saying that it is a shame for a woman to not be under the authority of either her father or or husband? In Isaiah 4:1, the seven women are asking the man to take away their shame. It seems there is a dearth of men who are willing to marry them, much like what we see today in the church.
Well very bad interpretation as yous all cherry pick what you like. Explain vers 6 from 1 Corinthians 11. We know and even to this day the Jewish women cover their head so it wasnt just a thing for Corint.
Thank you for saying this, I am not Christian but I always wondered why Christian women don’t cover up although it says it in their scriptures. Also The Virgin Mary was covered from head to toe just like some Jewish women and Muslim women do today
God forgive me if this is wrong and I pray in Jesus name that I be corrected if I am wrong. But he is right if you look at 1 corinthians 5 But a woman dishonors her head* the star means (or dishonors her husband) but if you continue to read it also says her glory is her hair that is been given as a head covering. (along those lines) So it also is best judgement. If you cover your head in church its fine nothing wrong with it. I might once I ever get married! :)
Thank you for this breakdown
If it were about culture why did Paul reference nature instead?
There was no Old Testament law requiring women to
wear a fabric covering. (The priests were required to
wear turbans.) So it was not part of the culture. There
are a number of scriptures that show that. Reply if desired.
Nature, because the 'covering' is the hair.
Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering.
-NASB version
Don't bring culture thing. Scripture Only.
David, Haman & other men covered their heads while mourning or when they were ashamed [humiliated] (2 Sam. 15:30; Esther 6:12; Jer. 14:3-4).So that could be one reason why a man praying with his head covered would be disgraceful.
Paul never says anything about sexuality. Where do modern-day theologians even get this from? Paul only talks about headship. Paul is pretty blunt, if he was talking about sexuality he would have just said so like he did in so many other passages.
Headship never changed. God, Jesus, man, women. So this hasn't change. Plus Paul says head covering is the practice in the churches of God, not just Corinth. (1 Cor 11:16)
Plus Paul praises them for remembering what he has already taught them in vrs 2, and then instructs them about headship and authority in vrs 3.
He even uses Adam and Eve as examples.
Also the word for covering/ uncovering in 1 Cor 11:4, 5, 6, 7, and 13 all use the same word, katakaluptó/ akatakaluptos, which means to cover or veil or uncover, unveil. This same word is used for the veil in the Temple that separated mankind from Gods holiness and glory.
The word used in verse 15 that Paul uses as an example for a woman's hair, is the word is "peribolaion" which means, a wrapper, mantel, cloak or covering. That which can be thrown around. (Think of women tossing their hair about.)
These are not the same Greek words. We should use different English words to distinguish between the two.
Mom 4 Christ couldn’t agree more! Too many people who alter the context of the word of God.
Praise the Lord I always rejoice when I see those that receive the simplicity of women covering there heads and don’t try to explain it away. Might I add that the KJV is Gods word for English speakers and it isn’t necessary to use two different words, the scripture is clear to those who are Jesus’s sheep and hear his voice, there are many who (as Peter rightly said) wrest the words of Paul to there own destruction, and rather be taught of God they heap unto themselves false teachers having itching ears.
I would like to share these channels with you that I know will bless you if you love Gods word:
ua-cam.com/users/EarthenVessels
ua-cam.com/users/TheWordprophet
This feels so similar to muslim
yes it does in a way because the WEARING of a head covering. But Christian women do it more so to put the focus on God so he can be more glorified through Jesus Christ. As to muslim women who use it for modesty and loyalty of their spouse.
joe Mama i feel like also a lot christian women do it for their husbands too actually
Jeff's wife speaking... We cover our heads first and foremost because God wants us to. The covering is a symbol of power on the woman's head which shows her submission to her husband and it is for the sake of the angels. Scripture teaches that if a woman is not covered when praying and prophesying, it is as if where shorn or shaven.
joe Mama Muslim women cover themselves because God asked them to, that’s the main reason and it’s a good enough reason for them to do that. If they wore it because of their husbands then unmarried Muslim women wouldn’t cover up.
It seems very religious and like many other religions but it is in the bible. New Testament too! It’s an interesting concept.
"Is not instinct also teaching you that a man, when his hair is erect (qa-em standing), he has disgrace (or reproach)? And when a woman grows out (dam-rab-bai) her hair, she has praise (or glory); because her hair was given to her for (or in the place of) a covering (or veil). But if [any] one argues against these things, we don't have a custom like this, and neither [does] the churches of God." (1 Cor. 11:14-15 Peshitta). The Aramaic text says something quite different than the English translations and Dr. Lamsa's translation, which retained and polished up the KJV text here. The Aramaic text says that a man is not to have erect hair, NOT "long hair" (Lamsa, KJV). Qa-em means: “standing, erect and upright.” The next word after long is the word sa-ạra, meaning hair. The Aramaic text has two words here while the Greek text just has one word. Also, the Aramaic text of the next verse reads: , "And when a woman grows out her hair, she has praise (or glory) ..." Paul isn't relating a custom where a woman has to have long (Lamsa, KJV) hair; but that she should have hair, regardless of whether the length is short or long. Paul earlier had said that if a woman prays or prophesies when her head is unveiled, than she is equal to a woman that has her head shaved or shorn (1 Cor. 11:5). She shouldn't have a disfigured or bald head like a slave or captive (Deut. 21:12). Gri-a "shaved or shaved one" has both an adjective and a noun meaning. It can refer to a monk; or contemptuously, to a slave. That is why Paul said: "...but if it is a shameful thing (or hideous) for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered [with hair]. (1 Cor. 11:6)." I want to reiterate that Paul is discussing a "custom" that is non-binding on women. It is an opinion that he had that was based on the times. Paul hinted others may not agree with his opinion and hence this custom isn't obligatory or a command from God. Not much else is known about this custom. I personally don't mind if a woman has a bald head if she wants that. It's her choice and it isn't hurting anyone.
Thank you
Yo Ben, my girlfriend is Messianic Jew in faith says she prefers men w/biblically long hair..do you have any idea what she is talking about?
2 years late but she is probably referencing men who are under the nazarite vow (the same vow samson took) Its a vow where you cant drink alcohaul and you cant cut your hair.
Thank you brother for this. Alleluia!
Is it a sin for women to have short hair
what verse?
(corinthians 11:6)
For if a woman does not cover her head, SHE MIGHT AS WELL HAVE HER HAIR CUT OFF. but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man
And 1 Corinthians 11:10
Please clarify this for me, most of the things that were written in the Old Testament are not done and practiced after Christ right? Like offering a sacrifice to God by killing animals. Well about the story of Samson, it was written in the Old Testament. 1 Corinthians is New Testament.
Thank you very much for that explanation. Learned a lot.
❤❤❤❤
That was awesome and it was clear and made a lot of sense. I was totally confused...but now I am found. Thank you. Keep up the good work for the Lord.
Jeff's wife speaking... The covering is a symbol of power on the woman's head which shows her submission to her husband and it is for the sake of the angels. Scripture teaches that if a woman is not covered when praying and prophesying, it is as if where shorn or shaven. We are asked the question, "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" And then Paul goes into the nature argument. There are quite clearly two coverings, long hair and a material covering for praying and prophesying.
They Ben, thanks for the video. First one I've watched of yours.
However I would have you go a bit deeper regards to the covering. It may be true about the culture, prostitutes and homosexual practice. However verse 4 and 5 is so clear in every English translation. Man should not cover. Women should cover...while praying for prophesying.
Point is Paul does not say anything about the culture. He could. He does many other places. But he just doesn't here. There's much more to this. But look even at history up until very recently the practice was found. And still today the military, baseball teams church (hopefully) men who are covered uncover for prayer. Women do not. Rather women have had Easter bonnets, stylish hats and many other veils even when getting married, up until, you guessed it, very recently.
If the culture is the argument, then it's the current culture post feminism in the 1960s that changed this ancient practice and now we today are feeling it and trying to rationalize
@SAMS BLACKJACK I do not have an idea why you sent me that link
Awesome response brother
Strongly disagree, if you look at the end of where Paul talks about head coverings he says if anyone questions any of this(head covering, long har, etc.) we have no such customs nor do the churches of God. Meaning we have no custom to wear head coverings in Christianity or how our hair looks or it’s length.
When Paul is speaking that even in nature you do not see males having long hair. What nature is he talking about? It does not make sense that it is the nature of the animal kingdom, because we see the opposite in many species, lions, peacocks, roosters, birds in general. What other nature is left?
And it does not make sense to take that verse and not include it in context with the rest.
Although it has been common for men to have short hair and women long in many cultures and throughout many years, this is not a good point to take because there are still many other cultures where this practice is not true and is not seen as unmanly or unwomanly.
Time changes cultures. In Western culture today you don't see masculine men in robes or skirts, but in ancient times that's what every man wore. It would be considered as a feminine act to wear a skirt now but not then.
But if they had pants would that mean the men would start wearing them and the women wouldn't? No, because even in ancient times there existed trousers that were commonly worn by horseback riders only.
So it's after knowing all this, it is the most reasonable conclusion that Paul was speaking of culture. This being said and known, this does not mean that because we have an understanding of why some things are considered masculine and others not, that it means we can pursue things because "oh, well that's just how society now views it but in reality it isn't like this in other places or wasn't before".
Live by how your society views as what is masculine for men and what is feminine for women. Just like as we should live and obey governments no matter if we disagree with them or not up until it is no longer viable for a Christian, meaning up until it means disobeying God.
Longer hair and beards meant more maintenance for the man who does physical labor, but being the provider/the person who does the physical labor there is no time for that maintenance. And throughout time that's where man has been. So short hair is associated with that role man had. So it's not that short hair means masculinity, it means more efficient. Look at the men throughout time and cultures who didn't do physical labor. Pursuers of knowledge and wisdom, scholars, mathematicians, etc. All, if not most, had long hair and beards.
@@Joshua-on2du No brother, what he meant was that if anyone wants to argue about it, he says we don't have that in our custom, meaning that it was not something to argue about.
It's supposed to be done.
I offer another scholarly reason which is from Troy Martin and with physiology.
The “covering” mentioned in 1corinthians 11 is not referencing a piece of fabric...it’s referencing hair. I think you totally missed it on this.
So then how would you explain it?
Victor Benjamin I will be glad to do so...but right now I’m preparing my sermon for tomorrow. I’ll put together some scripture with the Greek meaning and share them with you. God bless and have great church tomorrow 👍🏻
@@victorbenjamin852 The issue at Corinth was not whether long or short hair was an acceptable
covering, but whether or not the head was covered with a veil or hat. This
is proven by the following:
----"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth
his head" (v. 4). The distinction here is obviously not between short and
long-haired brethren, but rather between men with covered and uncovered
heads.
Contentious sisters were provided with an alter native: either cover the
head or be shorn or shaven ( v. 6). But if long hair were the intended
covering, then the Apostle's alternative is meaningless.
"Cover" ( -ed, -ing) in the A.V. disguises the fact that different words for
"to cover" are used in the Greek text.
The distinction between two of these, "katakalupto" and "peribolaion" proves
that a veil or head covering, and not long hair is intended. These words are
as follows:
"Katakalupto" ( 'kata' = 'fully'; 'kalupto' = 'to cover up'), "to cover
fully" ( Yg). This word occurs through out verses 5- 13 and is translated
"veil" in the R.S.V.; Nestle and Marshall's "Interlinear Greek-English New
Testament'' and many other versions.
These translations make it plain that the issue relates to a head covering,
not the growth of hair, long or short.
"Peribolaion" ('peri' = 'around'; 'ballo' = 'to throw, cast'), "something
cast around" ( Y g). The long hair of a woman is her glory - like a mantle
cast around ( v. 15) .(8) But this is not to be displayed in the assembly of
believers before the presence of God. The intended covering in the ecclesial
meeting is the "katakalupto" ---- the head covering or veil.
When Paul refers to the long hair given to the woman as her glory, he is
drawing a parallel with what "nature" or common-sense suggests.
This can be seen from the following:
MAN long hair is degrading.
WOMAN long hair is her glory.
Therefore. a parallel is evident [natural] with the spiritual a man ought
not to cover his head a woman ought to cover her head.
4. The mistaken interpretation (9) evident in the question results from
reading verse 15 as if it were the conclusion of the argument rather than an
additional appeal to common-sense by a parallel: what "nature itself
teaches.".
@@markgodbey3315 My girlfriend who is Messianic Jew in faith says she prefers/like Men w/biblically long hair...my confusion is what is she talking about?
this helped me a lot, thank you.
Sh 11 was talking about hair only head not talking about today time. Man made this change. Not going against you. Just trying to figure this out. In my area it’s a strong subject. With some anger. Yes anger.
I’m sorry but I have to disagree with you . I had my personal experience with God when I was led in my spirit and made it really clear whenever I come to into prayer in my alone time .. to always come to him in a head covering.. and when I’m at church..
He is the same yesterday, today and forever.
God always talks and he shows us and I came from a background where I always pray uncovered until I started keeping his commandments which is his law.My changed from that point. We must understand the context.
Dont make the lord's supper a buffet.
So funny
This is why i left christianity ✝️ a long time ago just listen to this man says you dont need to cover your hair 😆 and if we go to 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 it says to cover you hair in his bible .. Then he says its for another group of people, so if its for another people why are u believing in the book that is talking to another group of people ?
Why are you laughing for leaving? You abandoned God the creator of the universe who made you in His image . Who loves you more than you'll ever know . Who desires to restore your soul. The wicked , like to keep there secrets in the dark, whoever doesn't want to shed light will remain in the dark. In the end , every dark secret that you and everyone else has , will be brought to light.
If this is not cultural, what are we to make of "greet one another with a holy kiss"? I haven't seen very many Christian men do that.
A Mennonite church I briefly attended many years ago practiced both the women's head covering as well as the holy kiss among the "brethren ".
@@middlecrossranch3977 Interesting! They certainly don't lack scriptural support for their position, but I think I'll stick with holy handshakes.
Can you do a video explaining 1 Corinthians 14:34
Or explaining away.
Would you explain in depth Corinthians 11: 7 , 10 Thanks!
1 Cor 11 is pretty clear that a woman should cover or veil her head in public worship. The word for covering in 1 Corthians 11:4, 5,6,7, 13, is the word, katakalýptō, from katá, "down, and kalýptō, "to cover"-cover down, to make appropriate (complete), i.e. to wear a veil.
It is the root word used for the veil that separated the Holy of holies from the priests.
But only in vrs 15, where Paul is giving an example from nature is a different word used, "but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering."
This is different word from the others for "cover"= "peribolaion," that which is tossed around or a mantel that can be thrown around the shoulders and body (As in when a women tosses or throws her hair around).
Cover in the first few verses of 1 Cor 11, should really be translated veil as that is the proper Greek word used.
Katakalýptō was NEVER used in Greek for hair.
This is where we get the English saying, "Let your hair down." Becuase during the "sexual revolution" women let their hair down out of their buns, uncovered their hair and shook it back and forth. Which is very alluring to man.
If hair if the covering as some people say, can men be bald or take their hair off and on? No obviously not. This is why men take their hats off in church or at baseball games, etc.
Also, since woman's hair is her glory, it should be covered because we are not to show our glory when we come into the presence of the LORD. Only the LORD'S glory should be on display. Not woman's.
Plus the veil or covering is it be a symbol of us coming under God's authority to the angels. And since all women have hair, that is not a symbol. We put a covering or veil on our head as a symbol that we are coming under authority to remind the fallen, and not fallen angles that we are in obedient to God's order. (As Satan rebelled because he wanted more authority). Also it's also because angels are in church services and they can't see our hearts, but they can see a veil. Angels partake in the gathering of the saints and want to look intently into our worship time. (1 Tim 5:21, 1 peter 1:12, Rev 2:1, 2:8, 2:12, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 3:14).
This was not a cultural thing in Corinath. There's is NO historical accuracy to this statement that is often pushed as truth. This is a lie that has created into the church in only the last 100 years. Headcovering was actually counter cultural. Jewish and Corinathian men covered during prayer and worship, and Corinathian and Jewish women uncovered.
Up until only the last two generations woman covered in Church. All of our grandmothers would have covered in church. This is why the Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, the orthodox churches, a lot of African congratations, and Messiniac Beleivers, etc still cover their hair.
Here's some verses in the OT about head covering. Hope these help.
Isaiah 47:1-2. Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones and grind flour, "put off your veil", strip off your robe, uncover your legs, pass through the rivers.
(So as we can see, even virgins were to keep their heads covered and save their hair for their husbands. Otherwise it is like they are showing all their nakedness).
Numbers 5:18. Then the priest shall stand the woman before the LORD, "uncover the woman’s head," and put the offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse.
Also Genesis 20:16 says in the Hebrew
Then to Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; indeed this is "a covering for her eyes" (to put back on her wedding covering) you before all who are with you and before everybody.” Thus she was rebuked.
From what I understand In Genesis 24:65. Rebekah covers herself because the bridal price has already been paid. 2 vrs later we see Isaac take Rebekah bright away into his tent. There was no wedding ceremony. Her covering herself was an outward show of her marriage to Isaac. Since they were married he was allowed to take her right away into his tent and "uncover" her.
So you're using the old testament to justify the new ok. Question so all the bible was speaking to a certain people, not us the question is why are we following the Bible?
What it sounds like it is like when Jesus said you search the scriptures because in them you believe you have life but you refuse to come to me and being more righteous than the scribes. You can take in the bread and water of Yeshua and use it in a dishonorable way.
Catholics have avoided this verse ridiculously.
MOUNTAIN FORGE Not me, I’ve been cutting my hair since reading it.
MOUNTAIN FORGE I agree women don’t have to but I’m a man so I got to.
MOUNTAIN FORGE yea, recently I read the verse and I have been trying to keep it short. I’m not sure if I’ve read it before. My walk has been pretty unique though, I’ve had a few teachings and sayings in my head that I didn’t remember studying or hearing but as I tried to study the Bible they were confirmed to be true teachings.
MOUNTAIN FORGE If your walking with the Lord, can you tell me how it is?
MOUNTAIN FORGE yea, I’ve learned about the Giants and sleep paralysis.
Godbless you Pastor Ben!
Her hair is her glory, not everyone elses...cover your hair and head.
Jesus: don't judge outwardly, why do you worry about clothes. Become one flesh with your wife.
Modern "Christ"ians: PUT ON YOUR HEAD SCARF AND SIT DOWN WOMAN
Nothing changes the "Word of God"
"3 But I would have you know, that the *head [Chief : Supreme] of every man is Christ; and the
*head of the woman is the man; and the *head of Christ is
God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth
his head.
5 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.
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.
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.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."
1 Cor 11:3-9 (KJV)
1 Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If she has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off.
So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God.
If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut his off each time before prayers, or of course be bald.
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
But it says in the word of God that the angels watch us or something like that this doesn't help sorry
Hello Hannah Snow-millican. Can you please expand on this? Do you know where in the Bible the verse is you are referring to? I would appreciate it. Thank you in advance.
@@ak6781fan it's in the same passage. 1 Corinthians 11 .
@@stalstonestacy4316 thank you I'll look it up.
Not cultural at all , even the Protestant fathers taught it wayyy after Corinthians /Paul ! The angels are still there ! The headship is still supposed to be there ! Most all women veiled or at least wore hats in all denominations before the hyped up feminist' movement in the 1960's bucked up against anything and everything male headship , so as most churches do thru time is end up submitting to the dictates of the secular culture around them as not to offend out FEAR OF MAN !
He didn't realize when he mentioned the order of authority, the head of Christ is God.
Christ is God
@@deebonash1495 Then who is the head of Christ?
@@ahmadfuad3910 no one is the head of christ. Where in the bible does it say Christ has someone above him?
@@deebonash1495 Verse from your scripture (Bible):
(My father is greater than I)
"Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." - John 14:28
(Head of Christ is God)
"But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God." - 1 Corinthians 11:3
@@ahmadfuad3910 okay you're Muslim i see why it confuses you. i hope this is clear in understanding ill try to keep it short as possible. please bare
youre assuming Jesus cant be Co-equal to the father in essence if the father is greater than "he". But youre ignoring the fact that the term (greater) in english or greek etc, can have 1 or 2 meanings. someone who is better in essence or in rank.
im greater than my dog not only in essence as a human but also in rank and position. My boss is greater than me, the president is greater than the vice president. me, my boss, president and vice president are all fully humans we have the same dignity and value in the eyes of the biblical God. they can NOT be better than another in essence of NATURE, were all equal. (When Jesus said, The father is greater than I, did he mean in essence? or did he mean The father is greater than him by virtue of status in heaven? because when Christ said this, he was on earth and had assumed the status ON EARTH and had the status of a servant YOU NEED THE CONTEXT. that can mean the chapter itself, the chapter before it or the book as a whole (so we can get context JOHN 14 v 12-14
---------------------------------------
JOHN 14 V 13-14 Jesus said to the disciples , truly "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater (meizona) things than these, because I am going to the Father."
notice Jesus said greater than he's been doing... same greek word.... can NOT mean greater in QUALITY....It means QUANTITY ... and they will be doing the same kinds of miracles... its all in the same sentence.... the disciples spread throughout the entire earth, reached to more people, preached the gospel to more nations and did more miracles than Jesus did while he was on earth, so greater here can only mean Quantity not Quality and importanty Jesus gave the reason why they will make more miracles than him. BECAUSE HE IS GOING TO THE FATHER... 13 and 14 he said (whatever you ask "IN MY NAME, THIS I WILL DO" notice he did say (the father will do it, no he said he himself will do it.) he says pray to him directly, it would be blasphemy if he was a creature, the quran and bible agree all petitions and invocations must be directed to God alone because only he can answer. Jesus is presupposing the omni attributes in order to know when where and what they are praying for and doesnt matter how many are praying to him.... he is saying he will answer them all...
-------
Lastly
JOHN 14:23 (staying in context)
"Jesus replied, ‘If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and WE will come to him and make OUR home with him.’ ....
Both the Father and the Son make their home with all true believers! Christ is clearly claiming co-equality with the Father since he is present with every believer in the same way that the Father is!
THERE'S more and more and more examples....
It’s very much a cultural thing. Not necessarily that important for salvation
Yes, and in regards to defining us as male and female (like there for today, there are certain haircuts and ways of dressing that define us as male or female.) For example UA-cam video just popped on my feed about a female barber but the hairstyles were confusing because they were hip male cuts for girls. Which I think is kind of cultural thing that Paul was trying to address in his day. The same way we have to address the transgender, etc type of thing now in our day.
@@RenewalCreations If you are right, then a) why didn't Paul say that was his reason and b) why did he give other theologically weighty reasons (Adam & Eve, argument from visible glory, reference to angels, ...)?
You break God's law, the punishment is death.
the husband has to submit and obey his wife just as much as the woman her husband
1 cor 11;16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
it was the tradition and custon and culture of those times. nothing else
in 1 pet 3 we read about women coming to the church meetings with plaited hair so women did not cover the hair.
thirdly, the Bible says that everything has to be gounded on at least TWO witnesses. there is only ONE place in the Bible where you read about the head covering and that is also not very clear since we read in the very passage that the hair of women is their covering.
in the new testament we dont follow the traditions of old. we follow Lord Yeshu who set us free from the external things. now the reality is Christ Himself. not the things on the outside
those who wear head coverings rely on the Flesh which is SIN and that is the WRONG REBELLION... thats bondage to sin...
I like you, lol ur all like Pentecostals come on bring it lol.
U got a subscriber brother. God Bless
No scripture was read that support what he says. Did he read any scripture about Sampson? No. He said, "oh this one person in the bible had long hair, see see that means this part of the bible is wrong".
You need to pray for understanding before you pick that book up again, sir.
Learn about Soufism
It was only a cultural thing, yet we see him making arguments from the natural and spiritual world? Come on man!
Right! Paul even says if anybody seems contentious about this (which people obviously do especially in these last of the last days) that none of the churches of God have any other custom than this. Seems simple!
This is more or less Paul's personal opinion. As he states in verse 16, also in verse 13 he tells us to judge among ourselves. When you put the whole of 1 Cor. 11:1-16 into context I think perhaps most are missing the point, it's really not about head coverings or the length of ones hair... but rather we, men and woman, are in need of each other. If you care to give it a reread with a focus on verse's 11&12 I wonder if you'll be able to gleam this from the whole of the passage and learn what's really being said. Many seem to teach incorrectly on these verses and make much of something that just isn't so.
Women dont go bald, men do, now dicern
Women do go bald.
This is so disappointing
This guy is lying
could you elaborate?
Lol nah he just lyin
Let the Word of God be true and every man a liar. The Bible says it is a shame for a woman to have her head uncovered. A christian woman should wear a head covering.
@@SoldierOfGodKJV Or a bow, ribbon or token or a headband if they are in a public place that is not a church or place of worship.
Women had long hair down to the ground in biblical Times . Men with
shoulder hair length is normal in biblical Times. Yeshua does have
shoulder hair length hair. 2 Samuel 14:26 Absalom Cut his hair. Its okay
for men to have shoulder length hair but not to have UNCUT hair like
the women used to have ( hair 3 feet on the ground ; never cut!
I am saying to everbody it is an additional covering..
I think shoulder length hair pretty. Don't believe it's a sin. Now when it's to the middle of your back it might be. There is a part of me that always wanted to grow my hair long to see how long it would get
She was right. You are wrong and deceived.
Women had long hair down to the ground in biblical Times . Men with
shoulder hair length is normal in biblical Times. Yeshua does have
shoulder hair length hair. 2 Samuel 14:26 Absalom Cut his hair. Its okay
for men to have shoulder length hair but not to have UNCUT hair like
the women used to have ( hair 3 feet on the ground ; never cut!
Where is Yeshua's hair length written about in scriptures?