Excellent question Angie. It wasn’t cultural at all. People want to believe it was so they don’t have to do it. Same with 1 Tim. 2:11-14. Call it cultural and people think you can dismiss it.

Exactly. The video does not explain why it is cultural and not universal. It is because what we find as reasonable and convenient inform our reading of what is ‘cultural’ or ‘universal.’ The speaker should have cited the Greek word used and explain its meaning, see how other texts contemporary to the epistle used that word. More information needed in this explanation.

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 7… “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter hey! Thanks for the detailed reply! The long hair argument can be easily dissolved by verse 4. "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head" If this passage means that fair is the covering it would read like this " A man who prays or prophesies with hair on his head dishonors his head" So if the hair is the covering, a man would need to shave his head every time he went to church. Also Paul says that a woman ought to cover her head "because of the angels". Now let's go to Ephesians 3:9-10 --Paul was chosen to make all men see the mysterious plan that had been kept secret from the beginning. God's purpose is to use the church to display His infinite wisdom to the rulers and authorities in the unseen realm". Also, 1 Corinthians 11 says that the woman's hair is a glory to her, and the woman is the glory of man. Numerous scriptures say "all glory to God forever". We always declare that all glory should go to God. When in a corporate setting a woman displaying her glory would be robbing glory from God because all glory is to go to God. There are many things we do in the physical that represent a true happening in the special realm. We can agree that baptism is a symbol of something spiritual. We can agree that the Lord's supper is a symbol of something spiritual. We can agree that speaking in tongues represents something spiritual. We also can likely after that we have spiritual weaponry... Romans 6:13 says that our bodies are weapons. But for some reason we cannot all agree that a woman covering her head has spiritual significance? 1 Corinthians 11 is clearly giving us an understanding of headship order. I'm sure we agree that Christ is the head of the church and that the church is His body, and that there's a proper order. Women have great power over men, obviously. But we are to bring ourselves into submission under authority (man whose head is Christ) and wear a symbol of authority on our heads in corporate church. When we do this we are recognizing headship order and displaying God's infinite wisdom to the unseen realm. Then women have spiritual authority and we're acting in order according to the Word of God. We wonder why we aren't seeing the power of God work as we know it should but we can't abide by His instructions on his it is suppose to operate. Think of the centurion's faith that Jesus marveled at. He understood authority because he was under and over men. He is given orders and he acts immediately; he gives orders and they act immediately. I'm going to leave it at this for now. Let me know what you think about what I've brought forth. Thanks for the discussion!

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter hey I replied to you, but I guess the creator deleted my comment so...

Blessings Kayla!

I would say 1 Corinthians resounding message is that the believers SHOULD remain culturally relevant, as long as it's not in contradiction to the teaching of Christ. Repeatedly, Paul teaches to 'remain as you were when you found Christ.' instead of becoming Jewish. Jewish men had long hair and head coverings, but Roman men didn't. So Paul is saying, remain as you are Corinthian believers, don't lose your cultural relevance for things that aren't a part of the gospel. Roman women covered their head in public, and it seems like the Christian women were taking off their head coverings. Paul is saying 'hey represent Christ and your husband's well, keep your (Roman mandated) head coverings on.

@@samozeal9466 Paul isn't making cultural appeals, though; he is appealing to God's intention (creation, nature, angels) and the fall. This means that the head covering rules would apply to men and women of all cultures, universally. Jesus Himself made similar appeals when speaking of universal rules.

@@tt-cy1hb you say that he's not making cultural appeals, but how can you know that? You say it with a lot of confidence, yet the vast vast majority of Biblical scholars say the evidence shows that it is indeed cultural. Now I agree with you of course that the intended message of Paul is universal: Honor God with proper gender/sexual ethics in a way that is modest and contextual. Roman women covered their heads. Roman men only had long hair if they were openly homosexual (looked down upon by Romans). That doesn't mean, for example, that Jewish background followers of Jesus in Jerusalem had to do this too. In fact John the Baptist would have had long hair as a Nazarene. So Paul's message is definitely applicable to us, but we must use our own intellect to know how to be modest in a way that honors the culture we find ourselves in. Which of course doesn't mean we should ever be immodest in a scandalous culture, just that different cultures express modesty differently. For example in Bangladesh, they always have a scarf covering their chest... Could cover the head, or not, but must cover the chest. If someone misapplied this verse, maybe their head would be covered, but not their chest and they'd be culturally immodest. If someone correctly applies this verse, they'd be sure to bring honor to God by covering their chest for the sake of the people they are trying to love.

@@samozeal9466 I can know that because it is very plainly what Paul said. He wasn't speaking in a roundabout way to get folks only of a certain culture to listen to his words; he said that, *by nature and by the angels and by God's given relationships between Himself and Jesus and man and woman,* for a man to have his head covered during prayer and prophesying is dishonorable, and for a woman to have her head uncovered during prayer and prophesying is dishonorable. Dishonorable to whom? To the woman, to the man, to Jesus Himself, to God Himself. It dishonors all in that relationship. If I cannot trust what is quite plainly spoken, then I ought to call into question the "true meaning" and "cultural context" of every single thing Jesus has plainly said, as well, and I could find an excuse then to dodge His will, to pick and choose what of His teachings and commands I want to follow, rather than to simply listen to what He has to say to us all. Maybe modern Biblical scholars disagree with me, but nearly all of practising Christians through history very much did not. It's not about which men agree with me, though; it's about God's will. Paul speaks of God's universal will. I trust Paul, given his teaching authority and duty by God (he spoke to Gentiles just like me!), whose writings are a very important part of the collection of God's inspired Word, made available to us all to read for ourselves so God may speak to us directly. *The Spirit* is convicting me to cover my head as a woman. The Christians of nearly all generations before me were convicted by this teaching-God-given church traditions and not traditions of men. The kind Paul tells us to heed. Who am I to say to God, Who has reached me by these means, "Nay-I would prefer to listen to my historian peers, and besides that, I prefer my culture's practices!" Though I am no doubt coming across strongly, please know that I have no hard feelings against you (this isn't an issue upon which salvation is contingent, to be sure). Just a zeal for God-for Truth! As you also appear to have. May God bless us both and guide us to the truth always, brother (or sister).

Thank you for your comment Cari. The literal approach to head coverings is a possible interpretation, and was mentioned in the video, however a literal application of what Paul says about head coverings in verses 4-5. However, that interpretation doesn't need much more of an explanation as it approaches those verses in a literal way, and for that reason I decided that a longer explanation was not necessary. There are others however who find the literal approach problematic for some of the reasons mentioned. It is important however that we all try to be honest with the text, while being gracious to those who seek to be obedient to God and this text, but end up landing in a different interpretive camp. Blessings to you and thank you for sharing!

Sounds like a "did he really say that?" 🐍

@@TheBibleEffect I appreciate your reply. We do need to be gracious with each other.

I agree on the cultural part in that culture should not play a part here but I disagree with the feminism part as this is simply an opinion. What people need and look for are biblical facts not theories or what people did after the bible was written in a church. Biblical facts.

Thank you for pointing out Deuteronomy 22:12. It is true, that that verse does not specifically mention head coverings. In fact, head coverings as a requirement for all Jewish men is not found in the Torah. There is however, a requirement for the priests to wear a head covering, found in Exodus 28:39-41. At some point in their history, head coverings for men became customary, possibly because of the statement in Exodus 19:6, that Israel as a whole was to be “a priestly kingdom”. One such head covering is a prayer shawl worn by Jewish men, called a tallit. These are worn during prayer times. These head coverings follow the instructions of Deuteronomy 22:12, which includes tassels and a blue thread mentioned in Numbers 15:38-39. It is not known exactly when this practice was adopted for all Jewish men. However, there is evidence that it was practiced as early as the 9th century BC. The Assyrian Black Obelisk (found today in the British Museum) depicts King Jehu wearing what appears to be a tallit on his shoulder, which is where it is commonly worn when not praying. I hope that helps, and thank you for commenting!

I concur this verse should not be used as some sort of evidence.

For the purpose of the video, we did not think that it would have been necessary to explain the approach that views these instructions as timeless. However, we appreciate that you took the time to give a response in defense of that particular view. Thank you for sharing. God bless!

Sorry, that was a misquote, and should be 1 Corinthians 9:12, not 9:8. Thank you for catching this!

The stipulation for dress in Deuteronomy 22:12 (also found in greater detail in Numbers 15:37-41) is referring to what in Hebrew is called a Tallit. This is the Jewish prayer shawl that is worn by men, even today. This is not referring to the clothing of women. In fact, because of the law outlawing the wearing of clothes from the opposite gender in Deuteronomy 22:5, most Jewish traditions do not support women wearing a Tallit. I hope that helps!