1 Corinthians 11 [Daily Bible Study]

[@patrickcarter1706]

Amen ❤

[@deborahthompson5041]

Thank you so much. I understand perfectly what Paul meant about how to treat people with love and respect. Thank God for your ministry.

[@paulrangel5612]

As the world struggles to find that something that is missing in their life - We believers have that something called Peace and Goodness in Jesus... We can go to the table to communion (commune together in union) to cleanse ourselves of our sins. Brothers and Sisters welcome others to by loving others and sharing to others the precious gift you have to others..Examine yourself and share the love of Jesus to others. Thank you Pastor

[@lorraineroberge5793]

This sermon struck home for me. Wait for each other....there are families that need to hear this message.

[@SCZBK]

14:59 wonderful sermon. Really opened up ch 11 for me. Thank you.

[@Breal191]

Thank you for this explanation. God bless you!

[@PresenceSanctuary-DrOkema]

He read “So too, woman is the glory of Go” but the text on the screen says, “So too, woman is the glory of man.”

[@jewishbride5010]

Justice and wholeness I agree with in my life and the body of Christ according to 1 corinthians 11, 2 corinthians 6:14-18 and this message, binding myself to be born of a healthy and wholesome man and my godly husband to be born of a healthy and wholesome woman, loosening myself of every unequal yoke and common share with those not born of a healthy and wholesome union, in the name and by the blood of Jesus Christ at the foot of the cross of Calvary, amen and hallelujah! Annelies Bakker, the Netherlands.

[@geraldkellenberger4566]

Thank you Lord

[@sheilden4011]

Thanks for the great explanation. God Bless!

[@kaylaserieux1428]

Thank you, Sir. God bless 🙏🏽💕

[@collegepennsylvania837]

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the powerful and loving God. He loves you so much and showed that by sending Christ to die for us. He wants what is best for you and you can trust that He is working all things together for the good of those who love Him. (Romans 8:28) Hopefully this helped and blessed you today. God bless you!

[@KyleKman23]

You read the first 16 verses, I wish you couldve touched on them!!

[@Ollietheweirdo_2024]

We love this channel and always laugh at how similar you look to my husband. (He is an only child) Thank you for providing biblical teachings for us all to take in. It's such a blessing to our family.

[@acewilums]

So too ,women is the glory of man

[@be.love.shine.]

God bless you and your family! Thank you brother !

[@brianprovorse7103]

Though it isn't quite the same, I feel like an outsider in my church, despite everybody having a genuine like and respect for me. I am 41 years old, never married and no children (I am still a virgin). It seems like the topic of wives and children/grandchildren come up constantly and I can't relate. Though I always wanted to be married and have a family, there are reasons why that hasn't happened to include things I've gone through in my life and the lack of trust.

[@GodLovesYou-r4u]

Maby you have a calling or the lord wants you for himself drow close to him and ask him i pray all those things come to pass in the name of Jesus I pray this finds you well God bless you in Jesus name shalom amen 🙏

[@RameyRocks]

I was reading and I don't understand the verses about the head coverings. Is it wrong for me to pray without my head covered?

[@heyitssobe]

this was why i even searched the chapter! though this is good, I'd appreciate if he covered the entire chapter not just the lather half!

[@BranchTogether]

These are short devotionals with the purpose of facilitating daily bible reading. unfortunately we can't do commentary on the whole text in that time format.

[@VAL23909]

I thought he would cover that too because I was very confused too

[@jondowng207]

I don’t really know either but I’m reality if it bothers u, put a r shirt or towel over your head kinda like how women in Jesus day had their hair covered

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

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.

[@mariannevanderwalt7466]

Thank you...short and very poweful...just enough to think about all day long.

[@valerielorenz-daniel5206]

Thank you

[@bearifiablepau2095]

Interesting commentary, I would've probably overlooked those verses. I was surprised there's nothing on the headcovering though, I was interested in learning about that. Lord bless your ministry! 🙏

[@celiwemalindi]

😂😂 am laughing cause I was rolling my eyes when he said I know you might be rolling your eyes. I sure was😂

[@unboundpotato6409]

I would like to understand everything from Verse 1 to 16, I am trying to understand not only the context but also the purpose of the text... Edit: I read up and prayed about it, basically in Corinthian culture if women had long hair or wore a head covering it was a sign of submission their husbands. What is important isn't not the long hair or the head cover, but the heart of the woman... the long hair and head cover was just an example of the outward indication of a woman's heart. In Verse 3: God establishes the order of authority, so therefore if a woman refuses to be submissive she is also refuses to submit to God's order. Note that this does not mean that a woman has no authority, and it also doesn't mean that she is not worthy of glorifying God... "But among the Lord’s people, women are not independent of men, and men are not independent of women. For although the first woman came from man, every other man was born from a woman, and everything comes from God." 1 Corinthians 11:11‭-‬12 NLT

[@Ichibanoldpoop]

First look at the context: this passage applies when the church comes together as "the church." Then comes the concept of headship; just as Christ follows the leading or headship of His Father God, a woman should follow the headship or leadership of her husband. Then Paul brings up prayer and head coverings, and it is not immediately apparent what the reason for the head covering is until verse 7, which is the key to understanding the whole passage: man is the image and glory of God, woman is the glory of man. When the church comes together as "church", whose glory should we see? The glory of God? Or the glory of man? If the man covers his head, he covers the image and glory of God. If a woman does not cover her head, she displays the glory of man. In most churches today, we see displayed both the glory of God (the uncovered head of the men) and the glory of man. (the uncovered head of the women) In verse 10, the angels are curious to see if saved men and women will be submissive to God, because in their history they remember when the fallen angels sought their own glory, and denied the headship of God. There are more details to sort out, but once you grasp Paul's main point - the glory of God and the headship of God is the focus of the passage, and will believers glorify God and cover their own glory? Or will they display their humanly glory in the presence of God? - then it gets a lot simpler.

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

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.

[@yeseniagutierrez3368]

What about the part where it says woman should only praise God with their head covered ?

[@adanacummings-sylvan6361]

These teaching very helpful .. Keep up great work..

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

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.

[@melanieevans7717]

Where can i go to find wisdom (right now) to unpack 1 Cor11 on men and women, head coverings, and because of the angels- that stuff? Such a wordy wordy wordy intro almost lost me and im skipping ahead-no, u just skipped it all and went straight to the Lord’s supper

[@JesusLightsYourPath]

I am completely confused by him as well. I am just wearing a head covering unless I find a good reason to stop wearing it.

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

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.

[@aprilbrown4723]

Amen

[@KaneCiticani]

April Brown can someone dumb this chapter down?? I don’t understand the wording

[@charlesrudderow2720]

His main point of this message has nothing to do what the scripture actually says. It may not have been intentional but he twisted what the scripture said to fit his narrative of unity when that's not the main point of this text. Yes we are supposed to be on body as a church in Christ but that's not what chapter 11 is about at all.

[@jazielcrespo5673]

Yeah he kinda skipped the part about women

[@con2763]

This chapter doesn’t make any since why does God care about our hair styles he made the universe why does he care about the length of peoples hair?

[@edwardsaiditembo4011]

the bible says all things are lawful but not all things are beneficial. 1 Corinthians 10;23 this scripture will help you. Our GOD is SPIRIT ..He who want to worship him must do it in the spirit not in flesh and blood, that is human body ..thats elementary, religious mind we have to move away from .AS Christianity isn't a religion, but relationship between Man and God

[@phoenix21studios]

"does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him" ..........a mans hair naturally grows fairly long.... so.....as long as mans hair can naturally grow, its not considered a "long" length then. Should it not be a slight against God to cut any hair? shave your beard? those are natural things we are trying to change from the way God made us.

[@betsegawyeneneh1478]

😂😅

[@JesusLightsYourPath]

Are you saying women should cover their heads?

[@phoenix21studios]

@@JesusLightsYourPath Really deep fishing to get that out of what I said huh.

[@JesusLightsYourPath]

@@phoenix21studios Sorry I just don't quite understand what you meant.

[@phoenix21studios]

@@JesusLightsYourPath Do you think when God made Adam that He made him immediately get a hair cut?

[@Zaptrap401]

@BranchTogether I noticed you didn't touch on the teaching of woman head covering during prayer. Why does this command from the word of God apply to the Corinthians but not to modern day women? Or should modern day woman cover their head during prayer?

[@KaneCiticani]

Lucas Phillips I don’t understand, the wording used and no one wants to dumb it down

[@amandaprice2600]

@@KaneCiticani I've heard many messages on this passage. The following link is the most recent commentary I've heard, and I thought it was pretty good. Give it a listen if you have the time. reidsvillebiblechapel.com/MP3Messages/2019-08-04%20-%20Bert%20Jones%20-%20Glory%20and%20Headship.mp3

[@maggiethomas8853]

Amanda Price thank you for posting this. Very informative and much appreciated at a time when needed.

[@nahomtesfshet269]

Cover your head

[@JesusLightsYourPath]

I started coverinv my head 3 days ago.

[@Meloview]

Probably not intentional, maybe, but this guy misread scripture where it says "woman is the glory of man", he read "woman is the glory of God". But my biggest concern is why skip literally half the chapter and only discuss the second part of it? I read a comment they replied with saying these are short devotionals and are limited on time, but you spent the first half of the discussion giving background rather than mentioning any part of the first half of the chapter? Just does not feel right.

[@AlexSeals-j8s]

Stark Landing

[@mahmadraoufbahadoor4439]

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 .:

[@JesusLightsYourPath]

I started wearing a head covering 3 days ago and I'm not married. I just feel like God wanted me to do it.

[@arianareid1561]

Hello BT! Why did we stop praying before reading?

[@BranchTogether]

Good question! Don't remember, must have been an oversight. Sorry about that. Prayer before reading is definitely the better way to do it.

[@igangsterm78]

I was wondering the same thing

[@DeweyGavin-b6q]

Welch Fall

[@kingdom.citizen]

I thought he would explain chapter 11. But he skipped most of it.

[@CShyam-qc5oe]

Dear Sirs, I received my Baptism in a CSI Church but when I asked for membership the Pastor refused to give me membership certificate. Now I want to attend an other Church which will give me membership certificate. Can you help me, please.

[@bethelight8006]

You do not need no membership to be part of a church. That is not biblical! We are the body of Christ and those of us who have been truly born again we are one church, one body in Jesus Christ! Pray and let the Holy Spirit guide you to find a spirit filled church or just go back to the simplicity of a home church or bible study groups that are willing to build you up and disciple you like in the book of acts! God bless you!

[@CShyam-qc5oe]

@@bethelight8006 thank you. God bless you. Hoping that God will show me the way. I'm from Hyderabad, India. Where are you from?

[@Quisqueya77]

Challapally, you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior. As a result, you are now a citizen of God's Kingdom. Membership and religion was never part of God's plan.

[@CShyam-qc5oe]

@@Quisqueya77 Thank you for your reply

[@CarolBrown-x7k]

McKenzie Meadows

[@-Dustin-]

What Bible are you reading? That’s so not what KJV says, which is the original word? Confused

[@adriansullivan4542]

Classical example of way too confident preacher, who forgets what the scripture he just read was about, so his teaching has almost norhibg to do with the real scripture. Sad.

[@Kickstergang]

The hair is the covering and there is no such customs

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

Amen!! 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.

[@africanxy]

The head her, is referring to the husband (man)

[@JonathanGrandt]

Paul isn’t talking about “inequality”… at least not in any way that progressives mean it today…. You are right that’s Paul is upset over something, but what he is upset about is factions, not social justice. The factions he is concerned about has less to do with the issue as much as the factions themselves are evidence that the Body is divided. The One Loaf represents the One Body, so then any division in this is to improperly discern the Body and to forsake the unity of the One Body. You took it in a completely different direction which also terribly misses the point.

[@TinnyDee]

The title is misleading

[@TylerBart-l7q]

Trever Shores

[@jaachingoka8424]

What are you explaining man? You didn’t even talk about the first part This is not in-depth at all

[@philipbuckley759]

if one is not going to cover the whole, of Scripture, it is better to ignore......next...

[@TolandChristie-e4c]

Mills Shore

[@KurtMilone-w1k]

Bruen Lodge

[@stephanysantoyo2211]

6:17-7:00

[@RobesonFitch-u1t]

Anjali Parks

[@GabrielPorath-l6y]

Annie Cliff

[@AleaseHemond-v8y]

Reinger Estate

[@AnthonyLee-e3t]

Towne Streets

[@ZackarySmith-x2j]

Cronin Islands

[@RoscoeSpieker-e9z]

Therese Extension

[@MaxwellAlbert-u3w]

Stroman Rest

[@EarleSensenbach-b4j]

Ronaldo Vista

[@LostNFoundASMR]

Jesus had long hair 🤔

[@Sketchowlll]

No he didn't. Paintings and drawings that people claim are of Jesus do. Much of these idol-like images are completely inaccurate, and shouldn't even exist... people hate to hear that but truth is more important than feelings. I only reply to you now because no one else has or will say it.

[@Entertainment-bb1wl]

Have you seen Jesus?