Loved her careful & reasoned thoughts. Not sure if I fully align w all of her conclusions, but greatly appreciate the care with which she handles the topic & text.
Peppiatt is a theological stunner! So excited to hear her on the pod! (Everyone check out the Bible Project's free course taught by her-on Corinthians-you will be glad you checked it out)
Preston, I would love to see you interview Dr. Carrie Gress, the author of The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us. She has a PhD in philosophy. I recently saw her interviewed by Matt Fradd on the podcast "Pints with Aquinas" where she talked about this book. Picked it up and am reading it now. Wow! It's very interesting and enlightening. Although I'm not Catholic as she is, I think she has a lot offer to the conversation.
Those who advocate for the doctrine of women wearing veils often cite 1 Corinthians 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.” Proponents of this view interpret this verse to mean that a woman's uncovered head signifies a failure to wear a veil, thereby dishonoring God, her own physical head, or her husband, suggesting an act of disobedience. Some even go so far as to label it a sin. Additionally, there's a common assumption that the woman mentioned in this verse must already have long hair. Since advocates conclude that the covering refers to a veil, they argue that it implies an "additional" covering, which seems to contradict verse 15, where it states that God gave women long hair as a covering. Furthermore, some interpretations suggest that women should only be covered when praying or prophesying, while men should remain uncovered, implying that the covering can be put on or taken off like a veil. It becomes evident that reaching the conclusion that women must wear a head covering involves multiple assumptions, despite the lack of concrete evidence to support this claim. * 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 use the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. Some will use the phrase “head covering” to claim that the passage refers to it when this phrase is not found in the verses within 1st Corinthians 11:1-16. One can find them separately but not together to mean a synthetic covering. Therefore, it would be disingenuous to say that it does. The passage includes the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions, then why would Paul say in verse 7… “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t verse 7 override any alleged conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking/attractive) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. The answer of which should obviously be no. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as “a woman without a hat” would look unattractive and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair while praying looks especially uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). The reason is that they are intermingling the word head in verse 3 that refers to authority with the other word “head” that is being used to refer to the literal head of the human body. One can easily dismiss their interpretation because it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband and that the context includes the idea of hair and the shaving and cutting thereof. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. Therefore, there are no two coverings just one which Paul refers to as being “covered” which he means to be covered in long hair.
Its interesting because as a woman this section has never bothered me all that much. Rather, it is Pauls insistance that a woman must learn in silence, and ask her husband (presumably only) for faith instruction, as well as Peters admonition that a wife must submit.to her husband even when he is disobedient to God, that is the hardest for me and which is causing me to struggle with my faith right now.
Google Philip payne. He explains there is no submission. There is mutuality. Probelm is mist start with Ephesians 5:22. Start instead with 5:21. Start with Jesus Christ. He would not discriminate. 2 shall be ONE. This is the original design in Genesis AND reiterated it again in the NT. There is no subordination. Engage with the original Greek. Google "What Mike Winger currently gets wrong about women in ministry"
I think when women are to ask their husbands at home is literally telling the husbands to teach their wives. Women were not educated like men were then. So telling husbands to take interest in their wives education was something that wasn’t done before. It would be like having a 2nd grade education in a 7th grade classroom. So the second graders would be asking questions in the classroom so much the teacher couldn’t teach the 7th graders. So Paul is basically saying husbands catch your wives up at home so we aren’t having all these questions that are in ignorance that holds the class up. That’s my opinion. Because in the same book chapter 11 women were praying and prophesying in the church.
It’s easy to understand Paul on women not being rabbi’s when you study the Torah. Most of the laws in the Torah were not for women they were for men. Women only had a few laws they had to keep. Child bearing, only worshiping God, not eating foreign foods and giving to charity. Then we look into the NT and see that the women were saved the same way. 1 Tim 2. So the burden is not on us but on the men.
Totally get you. My faith has also been knocked but probably more because evangelical churches, in particular, don't wrestle with the truth of such passages. Theyvrather sit with a contradictory Paul. Difficult. :((
This strikes me as a highly plausible reading. Well done, Lucy. However, at 1 hour, Lucy said it's debatable whether Adam was male. I'm familiar with that argument, and the fact that she finds it credible enough to be worth mentioning concerns me about her thinking. That doesn't change the plausibility of her reading of 1 Cor 11.
Pentecostal here.. It’s amazing she’s teaching on this when never studying Hebrew or the Torah. Very difficult to listen too. when I read it is see diff than my church sees it from studying Hebrew. In the Torah a woman committing adultery was a death penalty, but a married woman speaking to a man in public was shame and the penalty was she had her veil removed for ever. So Paul telling the men in the crowd, women are the head of man now so they no longer need to cover. Because of Jesus everyone moves up a level. Paul says, women are given power cuz of the angels. Power in acts was to be deciples. We can now be deciples. Because of the angels is referring to God himself. Jacob wrestled with the angel of the lord.. the angel of the lord showed himself to Moses etc.. Basically God has given women power to spread the gospel to men and women because of Jesus. Since everyone moved up a level..
Holy cow... I'm just a few minutes in, and Preston said that the passages "appears to deny that women bear God's image." What? No, it does not even *appear* to say that. It says that women are not "the glory of God".
And again at 19 minutes, Preston said that the passage says women are not made in God's image. I'm so confused. It does not say that even a little bit.
@@tropheuspeste The passage in question in this video says that man is the image and glory of God but woman is the glory of man. It does not say she is the image of man but only the glory of man. Unless image and glory are understood to be indistinguishable things. Doesn't seem to me that's the case. At face value, the passage does not say that women is the image of man. That's my point. The Preston spoke as if it's obvious that the passage says woman is the image of man, when it's not obvious. That requires equating image and glorious the same thing, which is not an obvious conclusion.
59:10 Amen, this is exactly why we all need to be careful how we handle Scripture. It's not about 'having options' but seeking truth. A key point here is that Paul never states that 'woman is not the image of God', he only says that 'woman *is* the glory of man'. This negative assumption seems to be pretty significant to Lucy's hermeneutic and how she dispenses with any notion of understanding how these things might work together(possibly also just that no attempts to do so support egalitarian thought as she adds at the end). Resolving this is effectively the same question of how to understand Genesis 1 and 2 together so of course they affect each other; we don't interpret Scripture in isolation. Was Adam not *at all* in the image of God before Eve? Or did he image God in a way that was incomplete without male and female complementarity? The starting point of reading it piecemeal and finding things that are problematic to a 21st century ear without seeking to reconcile them seems to set up for Lucy's silver bullet of "quotations". The existence of these in some places doesn't mean we should use that wherever something is uncomfortable. I truly don't see how the way she presents the alleged quotation in this passage fits with the structure of Paul's thought. Even v3 seems to be contrasting with praise in v2, which implies the statement is admonishing where Paul had just been recognising them maintaining the traditions he taught. He could say 'But you have claimed' or 'But you are acting as though' etc, instead he says 'But I want you to understand'. Why would Paul *want them* to understand their own 'heresies'? Surely they already know those plenty well enough. For an example to back this up read Rev 2:1-7, which I'm well aware isn't Paul but it shows the idea of contrasting praise with correction as he seems to be doing here. I appreciate Preston bringing up the difference in the way Paul quotes them in Ch 6(and ch 10 echoes the same quotes), though it doesn't seem like there was much defense at that point. It seems Lucy was claiming there's no clear basis for knowing where these quotes are used but I think the way Paul contrasts their statements with his is quite clear in that passage and it not matching 1 Cor 11 is a problem for the hypothesis she is sharing. It at least means she doesn't have the implied precedent of 'people doing this in other places' if they did so on a different literary basis. It's also noteworthy that in ch 6 he doesn't actually refute their claims completely but rather incorporates them into his rhetoric as an opportunity to teach. As for "taking the quotations" out in other places, it's honestly not a big deal. The few others places they are used are not drastically impacted by doing so, just another distinction to be made between them and this theory.
So let me get this straight -- we're figuring out a new interpretation 2000 yrs into Christianity, and it just so happens to align nicely with the way that we in 2023 see the world? Color me skeptical.
Insightful observation. This seems to be a reoccurring theme on this show lately. Basically, questioning just about everything we’ve held to believe and how the church has been doing things for the last 2000 years. 🤔
So let me get this straight, christians practiced slavery on each other in the bible but we dont do that anymore in 2023? 1Ti 6:2 KJV - 2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort
@@westyso.cal.8842 what do you mean? Shouldnt we be practicing biblical slavery then and not modern society or modern Western culture? Where did apostle Paul say to stop slavery? Arent we still in the new covenant/NT?
I Corinthians 11:9 NIV Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. To deny the scriptures is to imply that we take out what we determined in our own way
6:20 she literally says she wants to bring coherence to the text! Egalitarians sit in judgment over the text and seek to make it say what they want it to say, even if that means labeling parts of it subjectively as not being written by Paul himself!
I find it hard to believe that the Jesus and the Holy Spirit would have permitted the Church to interpret this passage so wrongly for 2000 years. The number of novel interpretations of Scripture that egalitarians have come up with in the past 40 or so years is amazing. I find it interesting how Lucy said she may be wrong (seemingly feigning humility) and then was incredulous that anyone could seriously take a complementarian view. Mike Winger's recent series on this overall topic deserves a serious look. He meticulously goes through the scholarship and demonstrates how so many egalitarians have misrepresented scholarship they have cited in support of their positions and/or filtered out or completely ignored (rather than addressing) mountains of evidence that refutes egalitarian interpretations and supports the complementarian position. One thing is for sure. Either the complementarians have erred egregiously or the egalitarians have erred egregiously. May the Lord help us see the truth and turn from error and deal with one another graciously, sincerely, and not misrepresent one another.
The view of the past 2000 years (and before) was largely that women are in an inferior position because they are inferior in their being. Go read all the church fathers and you will see how that view permeated their writings. Complementarianism as promoted today is a novel interpretation. So could we have been wrong for millenia? If we beilieve in women's equality as persons, then we have to say "yes".
Which Church are you referring to - there are different beliefs and practices throughout churches in history. There are many disagreements between great theologians on larger issues. Jesus repeatedly called out the Jewish leaders on their theology (Pharisees and Sadducees). Jesus spoke in parables that many didn't understand. Many in the church didn't want to abolish slavery because our interpretations of the Bible seemed to support it. Whether or not we agree with this person or podcast, it's a gross oversimplification to say "Jesus and the Holy Spirit wouldn't permit [this]", unless you agree that the church has historically been right in everything it has committed to.
@@1of3fish I'm referring to the Church universally (as in the Body of Christ). In other words, all who have placed their faith in Christ and been born of God (regardless of denominational affiliation). Yes, there have been those within the Church throughout time who have embraced and propagated both wrong belief and wrong practice. But God has always risen up prophetic and pastoral voices to speak out against bad doctrine and bad practice. I think that is because Christ cares for His Church and His Church listens to His voice and obeys the Holy Spirit. So, why no correction or prophetic voices speaking out against those who would not allow women to be priests, pastors, and/or elders up until the past 50 years or so? Why would the Lord not have had voices calling us to repentance on this issue if it has infected the Church so much throughout the past 2000 years and across all cultures? When it comes to slavery, there definitely were such voices. But no so with women as pastors in the Church.
@jamesgiordano3879 for nearly 1500 years the common belief in the church was not complementarianism as we know it today - but was, in fact, patriarchal heresy. Women were inferior to men and not equal before the cross. John Calvin, John Bunyan, and so many others have startling quotes and ideas about women that are unbiblical, from both a complementarian and egalitarian perspective. It's unfortunate that it is that way, but church history isn't scripture and we would do well to remember that. Furthermore, I think that what you are referring to (voices calling to repentence) is exactly what is happening now, along with the work of his Holy Spirit through women. There is a huge influx of women leaders across the world - Iran, Thailand, and China have great examples of this and many people are being led to Christ through them. It's quite amazing, actually.
@@abeautifulmoment2714 I absolutely agree with you that "church history isn't scripture and we would do well to remember that." But I would argue that the common a largely agreed upon understanding of Scripture rather than some new 19th or 20th century revelation of what the Scripture have really been saying for 2,000 years and that has been (1) missed and (2) God has not raised up prophetic voices to speak against such "heresy" until recently strikes me as problematic. Christ does not keep truths hidden from His Church for millennia and then suddenly raise up new teachers with new insights that change the historical understanding of what the Scriptures teach. And why would the Holy Spirit inspire Paul and others to write things that on their face could so easily be understood to prohibit women from teaching men? I challenge you to show from both Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures (as opposed to conjecture about cultural contexts) where the complementarian view is clearly wrong.
She says that she would have a problem if she were to believe the Scripture as it's written?! I think that she has a problem, because she's reading it as a "21 century western woman." What the Bible says is an affront to modern worldly sensibilities. For example, if you interpret"headship " and "authority " according to how the world does, then of course you will have problems with the idea of"submission," but if you interpret it biblically, then you see how Jesus modelled "servant leadership and authority." No one has problems submitting to that type of authority. I do appreciate your discussion, but please stop trying to fit Scripture to your comfort level and simply "submit" to it, and then you will actually find liberty. I love you both ❤
This book review by SnickerdoodleSarah of Peppiatt's book, Rediscovering Scripture's Vision for Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts, makes some excellent points. Part 1 of 2 Reviewed in the United States on August 6, 2019 Rediscovering Scripture's Vision For Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts by Lucy Peppiatt is a book that, as the title indicates, attempts to look at Scriptures teachings of God's plan for women. As you may have guessed, these "fresh" perspectives ultimately attempt to lead the reader to think that Christian women do not need to keep silent in the church, can pastor churches, don't need to submit to their husbands…etc. I have read some of it outloud to many of my sisters (I have seven sisters) and they were all joining me in criticizing the claims of this book. Let me deal with some of her claims. First, her view of 1 Corinthians 11. I find part of her introduction to her interpretation ironic: "My own research has led me to study these verses in detail and to discover that the more obvious meaning of the text causes consternation and embarrassment among many, and even causes others to question Paul's understanding here." So, of course the obvious reading can't be right if people are dismayed and embarrassed about it? Anyway, she says that some believe these verses tell us that males are in the image and glory of God more than women, which she says cannot be true since Genesis tells us that both are said to be in the image of God. This can be answered very simply: One of my sisters pointed out that it only says that woman is the "glory of man" it doesn't say that she is his image and thus does not discount her still being the image of God. Anyway, After dealing with the problems she has with the "hierchialist view" the author asks, "Is it possible to salvage a better meaning out of these verses?" Her "better meaning" is quite shocking to me. She thinks that chunks of verses are just Paul repeating erroneous beliefs that the Corinthians held about man/woman relationships and that he's correcting those. She doesn't give an exegetical reason, just gives you an edited (with italics and other punctuation) quotation of this section of Paul's letter to demonstrate how, in her view, it should be read. And then she goes on to just assume you accepted that explanation. No exegetical basis other than she thinks that Paul couldn't be saying what these texts, obviously, say. She has a book written on 1 Corinthians 11, so perhaps she gets more detailed in that, but it certainly warrants a fuller explanation in this book. Another one of her arguments is (as I understood her to be saying) that there is no subordination among the Persons of the Trinity. Since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all of the same 'substance', all one God, then there can't be such a thing as 'authority' or subordination in the Trinity and therefore one shouldn't think that Christ set an example of submission that could be followed by wives. I'll give one example: "It is true that Paul claims in 1 Corinthians 15 that at the end of time, God will be 'all in all,' and speaks of Christ being made subject to God (1 Corinthians 15: 28. However, this is also in the context of the idea that all authority in Heaven and earth has been handed over to the son…Christ emerges triumphant at the end of time, having put everything under his feet. This powerful picture of Jesus Christ is not quite the loving, courageous submission that is referred to in a few verses of Philippians 2 in relation to the incarnation….." She seems to think that this means that God the Father is also put under Christ's feet! Excuse me? This does not mean that the Father then submits to the Son. Texts like 1 Peter 3:1-7, are negated because, though Peter does tell wives to submit to their husbands, all Christians are supposed to submit to each other. So that, of course, cancels out any command to wives to submit to their husbands. Her reasoning is absurd! Read just a few verses here: "For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord…"(1Pe 3:5-6 ESV) "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord…."(Eph 5:22ESV) Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. (Eph 5:24 ESV) These texts are very clear, very specific commands to wives that they are specifically to submit to, not their fathers or mothers, not their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, but they are to submit to their husbands in particular and look on him as their authority:
1:00:00 these folks question everything and are sure of nothing! They’re not even sure Adam was fully male! Everything is relative and you get to sit in judgment over the Scripture to subjectively decide what is God’s Word and what is not!
1:05:10 Wow! Listen and she will tell you exactly what she is doing: I am adding to text. It’s all relative so no one can correct me! And if you take God’s Word as it is then God is horrible and Paul is horrible!
Why doesnt the church have christian slaves today, and why arent christians owned by christian slave owners?? The original church practiced slavery. 1Timothy 6:2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort
@@goodmorninglife898 Great question. Slavery in the NT sense is very different than slavery today. Research it for yourself, and you’ll likely come away with a better understanding.
@@westyso.cal.8842 what do you mean? Shouldnt we be practicing biblical slavery then and not modern society or modern Western culture? Where did apostle Paul say to stop slavery? Arent we still in the new covenant/NT?
@@westyso.cal.8842this isn't true. Look up Greco-Roman slavery, and you will find in many cases it is not different. This doesn't mean that there wasn't variations (i.e., bondservants or debt slavery, which might be what you are referring to) but there was absolutely sexual slavery/ trafficking and slavery via kidnapping (war victims and captives often became slaves). It's uncomfortable to grapple with, but we can't dismiss the truth.
We used to hold more closely with the complimentary position, but there were some reservations about it. Now I am convinced that view is incorrect and has led to so many problems in the church. I have become a full subscriber to the traditional “Biblical Patriarchy” position, and see it as the only way for the church to find its way back out of this mess we’ve created. It is especially encouraging to see so many people waking up to how modern day worldly feminist ideology has infiltrated the church.
This was so interesting. I love that it has sent me straight back to my Bible.
Loved her careful & reasoned thoughts. Not sure if I fully align w all of her conclusions, but greatly appreciate the care with which she handles the topic & text.
This was very illuminating. Thank you for doing this interview.
Peppiatt is a theological stunner! So excited to hear her on the pod! (Everyone check out the Bible Project's free course taught by her-on Corinthians-you will be glad you checked it out)
Shalom & greetings from Johannesburg, South Africa
Preston, I would love to see you interview Dr. Carrie Gress, the author of The End of Woman: How Smashing the Patriarchy Has Destroyed Us. She has a PhD in philosophy. I recently saw her interviewed by Matt Fradd on the podcast "Pints with Aquinas" where she talked about this book. Picked it up and am reading it now. Wow! It's very interesting and enlightening. Although I'm not Catholic as she is, I think she has a lot offer to the conversation.
Good suggestion, @jamesgiordano3879
Those who advocate for the doctrine of women wearing veils often cite 1 Corinthians 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.”
Proponents of this view interpret this verse to mean that a woman's uncovered head signifies a failure to wear a veil, thereby dishonoring God, her own physical head, or her husband, suggesting an act of disobedience. Some even go so far as to label it a sin.
Additionally, there's a common assumption that the woman mentioned in this verse must already have long hair. Since advocates conclude that the covering refers to a veil, they argue that it implies an "additional" covering, which seems to contradict verse 15, where it states that God gave women long hair as a covering. Furthermore, some interpretations suggest that women should only be covered when praying or prophesying, while men should remain uncovered, implying that the covering can be put on or taken off like a veil.
It becomes evident that reaching the conclusion that women must wear a head covering involves multiple assumptions, despite the lack of concrete evidence to support this claim.
* 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 use the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. Some will use the phrase “head covering” to claim that the passage refers to it when this phrase is not found in the verses within 1st Corinthians 11:1-16. One can find them separately but not together to mean a synthetic covering. Therefore, it would be disingenuous to say that it does. The passage includes the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions, then why would Paul say in verse 7…
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t verse 7 override any alleged conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue.
Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix.
“For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold.
This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking/attractive) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. The answer of which should obviously be no. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as “a woman without a hat” would look unattractive and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair while praying looks especially uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). The reason is that they are intermingling the word head in verse 3 that refers to authority with the other word “head” that is being used to refer to the literal head of the human body. One can easily dismiss their interpretation because it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband and that the context includes the idea of hair and the shaving and cutting thereof.
So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. Therefore, there are no two coverings just one which Paul refers to as being “covered” which he means to be covered in long hair.
Love this. She is actually thinking unlike most Christians. Thats my motto #thinkforyourself
We struggle with these scriptures because we try to make them literal for today ⭐
Its interesting because as a woman this section has never bothered me all that much. Rather, it is Pauls insistance that a woman must learn in silence, and ask her husband (presumably only) for faith instruction, as well as Peters admonition that a wife must submit.to her husband even when he is disobedient to God, that is the hardest for me and which is causing me to struggle with my faith right now.
Google Philip payne. He explains there is no submission. There is mutuality. Probelm is mist start with Ephesians 5:22. Start instead with 5:21.
Start with Jesus Christ. He would not discriminate. 2 shall be ONE. This is the original design in Genesis AND reiterated it again in the NT. There is no subordination. Engage with the original Greek. Google "What Mike Winger currently gets wrong about women in ministry"
I think when women are to ask their husbands at home is literally telling the husbands to teach their wives. Women were not educated like men were then. So telling husbands to take interest in their wives education was something that wasn’t done before. It would be like having a 2nd grade education in a 7th grade classroom. So the second graders would be asking questions in the classroom so much the teacher couldn’t teach the 7th graders. So Paul is basically saying husbands catch your wives up at home so we aren’t having all these questions that are in ignorance that holds the class up. That’s my opinion. Because in the same book chapter 11 women were praying and prophesying in the church.
It’s easy to understand Paul on women not being rabbi’s when you study the Torah. Most of the laws in the Torah were not for women they were for men. Women only had a few laws they had to keep. Child bearing, only worshiping God, not eating foreign foods and giving to charity. Then we look into the NT and see that the women were saved the same way. 1 Tim 2. So the burden is not on us but on the men.
Totally get you. My faith has also been knocked but probably more because evangelical churches, in particular, don't wrestle with the truth of such passages. Theyvrather sit with a contradictory Paul. Difficult. :((
This strikes me as a highly plausible reading. Well done, Lucy.
However, at 1 hour, Lucy said it's debatable whether Adam was male. I'm familiar with that argument, and the fact that she finds it credible enough to be worth mentioning concerns me about her thinking.
That doesn't change the plausibility of her reading of 1 Cor 11.
Pentecostal here.. It’s amazing she’s teaching on this when never studying Hebrew or the Torah. Very difficult to listen too. when I read it is see diff than my church sees it from studying Hebrew. In the Torah a woman committing adultery was a death penalty, but a married woman speaking to a man in public was shame and the penalty was she had her veil removed for ever.
So Paul telling the men in the crowd, women are the head of man now so they no longer need to cover. Because of Jesus everyone moves up a level. Paul says, women are given power cuz of the angels. Power in acts was to be deciples. We can now be deciples. Because of the angels is referring to God himself. Jacob wrestled with the angel of the lord.. the angel of the lord showed himself to Moses etc..
Basically God has given women power to spread the gospel to men and women because of Jesus. Since everyone moved up a level..
Holy cow... I'm just a few minutes in, and Preston said that the passages "appears to deny that women bear God's image." What? No, it does not even *appear* to say that. It says that women are not "the glory of God".
And again at 19 minutes, Preston said that the passage says women are not made in God's image. I'm so confused. It does not say that even a little bit.
@@dugw15
What does Genesis 1:27 say?
@@tropheuspeste it says that God created both male and female in his image
@@tropheuspeste The passage in question in this video says that man is the image and glory of God but woman is the glory of man. It does not say she is the image of man but only the glory of man. Unless image and glory are understood to be indistinguishable things. Doesn't seem to me that's the case. At face value, the passage does not say that women is the image of man. That's my point. The Preston spoke as if it's obvious that the passage says woman is the image of man, when it's not obvious. That requires equating image and glorious the same thing, which is not an obvious conclusion.
@@dugw15image is likeness one in the same. Glory is what the image produces.
59:10 Amen, this is exactly why we all need to be careful how we handle Scripture. It's not about 'having options' but seeking truth.
A key point here is that Paul never states that 'woman is not the image of God', he only says that 'woman *is* the glory of man'. This negative assumption seems to be pretty significant to Lucy's hermeneutic and how she dispenses with any notion of understanding how these things might work together(possibly also just that no attempts to do so support egalitarian thought as she adds at the end). Resolving this is effectively the same question of how to understand Genesis 1 and 2 together so of course they affect each other; we don't interpret Scripture in isolation. Was Adam not *at all* in the image of God before Eve? Or did he image God in a way that was incomplete without male and female complementarity?
The starting point of reading it piecemeal and finding things that are problematic to a 21st century ear without seeking to reconcile them seems to set up for Lucy's silver bullet of "quotations". The existence of these in some places doesn't mean we should use that wherever something is uncomfortable.
I truly don't see how the way she presents the alleged quotation in this passage fits with the structure of Paul's thought. Even v3 seems to be contrasting with praise in v2, which implies the statement is admonishing where Paul had just been recognising them maintaining the traditions he taught. He could say 'But you have claimed' or 'But you are acting as though' etc, instead he says 'But I want you to understand'. Why would Paul *want them* to understand their own 'heresies'? Surely they already know those plenty well enough. For an example to back this up read Rev 2:1-7, which I'm well aware isn't Paul but it shows the idea of contrasting praise with correction as he seems to be doing here.
I appreciate Preston bringing up the difference in the way Paul quotes them in Ch 6(and ch 10 echoes the same quotes), though it doesn't seem like there was much defense at that point. It seems Lucy was claiming there's no clear basis for knowing where these quotes are used but I think the way Paul contrasts their statements with his is quite clear in that passage and it not matching 1 Cor 11 is a problem for the hypothesis she is sharing. It at least means she doesn't have the implied precedent of 'people doing this in other places' if they did so on a different literary basis. It's also noteworthy that in ch 6 he doesn't actually refute their claims completely but rather incorporates them into his rhetoric as an opportunity to teach.
As for "taking the quotations" out in other places, it's honestly not a big deal. The few others places they are used are not drastically impacted by doing so, just another distinction to be made between them and this theory.
So let me get this straight -- we're figuring out a new interpretation 2000 yrs into Christianity, and it just so happens to align nicely with the way that we in 2023 see the world? Color me skeptical.
Insightful observation.
This seems to be a reoccurring theme on this show lately.
Basically, questioning just about everything we’ve held to believe and how the church has been doing things for the last 2000 years.
🤔
So let me get this straight, christians practiced slavery on each other in the bible but we dont do that anymore in 2023?
1Ti 6:2 KJV - 2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort
@@goodmorninglife898
Study more.
@@westyso.cal.8842 what do you mean? Shouldnt we be practicing biblical slavery then and not modern society or modern Western culture? Where did apostle Paul say to stop slavery? Arent we still in the new covenant/NT?
She points out that many big names throughout church history found difficulty with this passage.
I Corinthians 11:9 NIV Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. To deny the scriptures is to imply that we take out what we determined in our own way
Genesis DOES say the woman is from the Man as the very English language bears testimony wo-man
"This is how heresy's work" -- proceeds to describe exactly what she is doing.
6:20 she literally says she wants to bring coherence to the text! Egalitarians sit in judgment over the text and seek to make it say what they want it to say, even if that means labeling parts of it subjectively as not being written by Paul himself!
I find it hard to believe that the Jesus and the Holy Spirit would have permitted the Church to interpret this passage so wrongly for 2000 years. The number of novel interpretations of Scripture that egalitarians have come up with in the past 40 or so years is amazing. I find it interesting how Lucy said she may be wrong (seemingly feigning humility) and then was incredulous that anyone could seriously take a complementarian view. Mike Winger's recent series on this overall topic deserves a serious look. He meticulously goes through the scholarship and demonstrates how so many egalitarians have misrepresented scholarship they have cited in support of their positions and/or filtered out or completely ignored (rather than addressing) mountains of evidence that refutes egalitarian interpretations and supports the complementarian position. One thing is for sure. Either the complementarians have erred egregiously or the egalitarians have erred egregiously. May the Lord help us see the truth and turn from error and deal with one another graciously, sincerely, and not misrepresent one another.
The view of the past 2000 years (and before) was largely that women are in an inferior position because they are inferior in their being. Go read all the church fathers and you will see how that view permeated their writings. Complementarianism as promoted today is a novel interpretation. So could we have been wrong for millenia? If we beilieve in women's equality as persons, then we have to say "yes".
Which Church are you referring to - there are different beliefs and practices throughout churches in history. There are many disagreements between great theologians on larger issues. Jesus repeatedly called out the Jewish leaders on their theology (Pharisees and Sadducees). Jesus spoke in parables that many didn't understand. Many in the church didn't want to abolish slavery because our interpretations of the Bible seemed to support it. Whether or not we agree with this person or podcast, it's a gross oversimplification to say "Jesus and the Holy Spirit wouldn't permit [this]", unless you agree that the church has historically been right in everything it has committed to.
@@1of3fish I'm referring to the Church universally (as in the Body of Christ). In other words, all who have placed their faith in Christ and been born of God (regardless of denominational affiliation). Yes, there have been those within the Church throughout time who have embraced and propagated both wrong belief and wrong practice. But God has always risen up prophetic and pastoral voices to speak out against bad doctrine and bad practice. I think that is because Christ cares for His Church and His Church listens to His voice and obeys the Holy Spirit. So, why no correction or prophetic voices speaking out against those who would not allow women to be priests, pastors, and/or elders up until the past 50 years or so? Why would the Lord not have had voices calling us to repentance on this issue if it has infected the Church so much throughout the past 2000 years and across all cultures? When it comes to slavery, there definitely were such voices. But no so with women as pastors in the Church.
@jamesgiordano3879 for nearly 1500 years the common belief in the church was not complementarianism as we know it today - but was, in fact, patriarchal heresy. Women were inferior to men and not equal before the cross. John Calvin, John Bunyan, and so many others have startling quotes and ideas about women that are unbiblical, from both a complementarian and egalitarian perspective. It's unfortunate that it is that way, but church history isn't scripture and we would do well to remember that.
Furthermore, I think that what you are referring to (voices calling to repentence) is exactly what is happening now, along with the work of his Holy Spirit through women. There is a huge influx of women leaders across the world - Iran, Thailand, and China have great examples of this and many people are being led to Christ through them. It's quite amazing, actually.
@@abeautifulmoment2714 I absolutely agree with you that "church history isn't scripture and we would do well to remember that." But I would argue that the common a largely agreed upon understanding of Scripture rather than some new 19th or 20th century revelation of what the Scripture have really been saying for 2,000 years and that has been (1) missed and (2) God has not raised up prophetic voices to speak against such "heresy" until recently strikes me as problematic. Christ does not keep truths hidden from His Church for millennia and then suddenly raise up new teachers with new insights that change the historical understanding of what the Scriptures teach. And why would the Holy Spirit inspire Paul and others to write things that on their face could so easily be understood to prohibit women from teaching men? I challenge you to show from both Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures (as opposed to conjecture about cultural contexts) where the complementarian view is clearly wrong.
Why are you rethinking (repenting) of the proper interpretation? Repent of your rethinking.
She says that she would have a problem if she were to believe the Scripture as it's written?! I think that she has a problem, because she's reading it as a "21 century western woman."
What the Bible says is an affront to modern worldly sensibilities. For example, if you interpret"headship " and "authority " according to how the world does, then of course you will have problems with the idea of"submission," but if you interpret it biblically, then you see how Jesus modelled "servant leadership and authority." No one has problems submitting to that type of authority.
I do appreciate your discussion, but please stop trying to fit Scripture to your comfort level and simply "submit" to it, and then you will actually find liberty.
I love you both ❤
Is this who you think God is?
This book review by SnickerdoodleSarah of Peppiatt's book, Rediscovering Scripture's Vision for Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts, makes some excellent points.
Part 1 of 2
Reviewed in the United States on August 6, 2019
Rediscovering Scripture's Vision For Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts by Lucy Peppiatt is a book that, as the title indicates, attempts to look at Scriptures teachings of God's plan for women.
As you may have guessed, these "fresh" perspectives ultimately attempt to lead the reader to think that Christian women do not need to keep silent in the church, can pastor churches, don't need to submit to their husbands…etc. I have read some of it outloud to many of my sisters (I have seven sisters) and they were all joining me in criticizing the claims of this book.
Let me deal with some of her claims. First, her view of 1 Corinthians 11. I find part of her introduction to her interpretation ironic: "My own research has led me to study these verses in detail and to discover that the more obvious meaning of the text causes consternation and embarrassment among many, and even causes others to question Paul's understanding here." So, of course the obvious reading can't be right if people are dismayed and embarrassed about it? Anyway, she says that some believe these verses tell us that males are in the image and glory of God more than women, which she says cannot be true since Genesis tells us that both are said to be in the image of God. This can be answered very simply: One of my sisters pointed out that it only says that woman is the "glory of man" it doesn't say that she is his image and thus does not discount her still being the image of God.
Anyway, After dealing with the problems she has with the "hierchialist view" the author asks, "Is it possible to salvage a better meaning out of these verses?" Her "better meaning" is quite shocking to me. She thinks that chunks of verses are just Paul repeating erroneous beliefs that the Corinthians held about man/woman relationships and that he's correcting those. She doesn't give an exegetical reason, just gives you an edited (with italics and other punctuation) quotation of this section of Paul's letter to demonstrate how, in her view, it should be read. And then she goes on to just assume you accepted that explanation. No exegetical basis other than she thinks that Paul couldn't be saying what these texts, obviously, say. She has a book written on 1 Corinthians 11, so perhaps she gets more detailed in that, but it certainly warrants a fuller explanation in this book.
Another one of her arguments is (as I understood her to be saying) that there is no subordination among the Persons of the Trinity. Since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all of the same 'substance', all one God, then there can't be such a thing as 'authority' or subordination in the Trinity and therefore one shouldn't think that Christ set an example of submission that could be followed by wives. I'll give one example: "It is true that Paul claims in 1 Corinthians 15 that at the end of time, God will be 'all in all,' and speaks of Christ being made subject to God (1 Corinthians 15: 28. However, this is also in the context of the idea that all authority in Heaven and earth has been handed over to the son…Christ emerges triumphant at the end of time, having put everything under his feet. This powerful picture of Jesus Christ is not quite the loving, courageous submission that is referred to in a few verses of Philippians 2 in relation to the incarnation….." She seems to think that this means that God the Father is also put under Christ's feet! Excuse me? This does not mean that the Father then submits to the Son.
Texts like 1 Peter 3:1-7, are negated because, though Peter does tell wives to submit to their husbands, all Christians are supposed to submit to each other. So that, of course, cancels out any command to wives to submit to their husbands. Her reasoning is absurd! Read just a few verses here:
"For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord…"(1Pe 3:5-6 ESV)
"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord…."(Eph 5:22ESV)
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
(Eph 5:24 ESV)
These texts are very clear, very specific commands to wives that they are specifically to submit to, not their fathers or mothers, not their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, but they are to submit to their husbands in particular and look on him as their authority:
1:00:00 these folks question everything and are sure of nothing! They’re not even sure Adam was fully male! Everything is relative and you get to sit in judgment over the Scripture to subjectively decide what is God’s Word and what is not!
The last verse is saying affirmative of all that went before and not negate it as this foolish modern woman is saying...
The worship in the real church is a sexual experience therefore the Ying and Yang of complementariness...
Preston: “I really hope your thesis is correct” 4:49 Egalitarians will tell you upfront where they start their exegesis!!!
1:05:10 Wow! Listen and she will tell you exactly what she is doing: I am adding to text. It’s all relative so no one can correct me! And if you take God’s Word as it is then God is horrible and Paul is horrible!
So much twisting of scriptures by this theologian. Receive the text the way it was given and the way the original church interpreted.
Why doesnt the church have christian slaves today, and why arent christians owned by christian slave owners?? The original church practiced slavery.
1Timothy 6:2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort
@@goodmorninglife898
Great question.
Slavery in the NT sense is very different than slavery today.
Research it for yourself, and you’ll likely come away with a better understanding.
@@westyso.cal.8842 what do you mean? Shouldnt we be practicing biblical slavery then and not modern society or modern Western culture? Where did apostle Paul say to stop slavery? Arent we still in the new covenant/NT?
@@westyso.cal.8842this isn't true. Look up Greco-Roman slavery, and you will find in many cases it is not different. This doesn't mean that there wasn't variations (i.e., bondservants or debt slavery, which might be what you are referring to) but there was absolutely sexual slavery/ trafficking and slavery via kidnapping (war victims and captives often became slaves).
It's uncomfortable to grapple with, but we can't dismiss the truth.
What did she twist? Can you give one example?
We used to hold more closely with the complimentary position, but there were some reservations about it.
Now I am convinced that view is incorrect and has led to so many problems in the church.
I have become a full subscriber to the traditional “Biblical Patriarchy” position, and see it as the only way for the church to find its way back out of this mess we’ve created.
It is especially encouraging to see so many people waking up to how modern day worldly feminist ideology has infiltrated the church.