Amen ❤

Elaborate please

You did not understand what he was saying. What he said was the letter was written during this cultural time but even this transcends time and applies today.

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.

1Corinthian 11 : 1, Be imitators of me as I am of Christ. The purpose of worship is to remember Christ. And that what we do as a group. And he gave a specific day.

Why go to church just to give? You can remember doing it on the first day. He died for us and yet it is not important on the first day of the week.We come together to remember Christ. Wow

German

To the contrary, I thought Skip did a masterful job of laying out the historical, cultural, and textual contexts of this passage in an honest and forthright manner, respectfully giving listeners the freedom to choose from the possible understandings (when more than one was possible) while making the case for his own. The problem, I submit, is that contemporary culture is so far out of alignment with scripture as to cause "discomfort" at best and downright persecution at worst for those who subscribe and submit to God's order as presented in this passage. Skip nailed the central theme addressed here--authority and order--and left it to the individual, as it should be, to accept and submit to God's divine order. If contemporary "cultural misalignment" with Scripture causes one discomfort here, then what are you doing with critical gender and racial theory, where modern culture goes wildly off the rails in comparison to what the Bible and reality itself declare to be true? Laissez-faire is gone; holding to Scripture will bring you trouble today, and I expect it to get worse unless there is yet another spiritual awakening. Thank you, Skip, for helping me lead my Men's Group through this challenging chapter! Having a seminary education helps me appreciate all the more your skillful treatment of this chapter in 1 Corinthians. May God bless Stephen McCarthy in his search for truth, and may God bless and use you, Skip, in helping people like Stephen and me in that pursuit. Above all, may we all be light in a very dark world by living lives of faith, obedience, and oneness characterized by love, no matter what the consequences in this world may be.

Explain

@@MsJaneSi Skip stopped short of repeating Pauls words and telling women to cover their heads while praying, even today. If you can explain away this verse as "culturally irrelevant", what else can you ignore in the Bible?

@@marvinscoggin6102 so should the pastor have positively repeated Paul and told women to submit to authority and cover their heads while praying?

But the wisdom that is from above is first peaceable, pure, gentle, easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. Love you bro. Don’t let criticism get you down. Keep going. Don’t quit. Overcome. God loves you. ❤

Then wby did Paul mention the business of who the head was of who?