1 Corinthians 11

[@reginaldbyrd8073]

Who ever is releasing Pastor Chuck's TWFT video, I just wanna say thanks and God bless your heart, more please.

[@reginaldbyrd8073]

Pastor Chuck hits the nail right on the head. Long after his death his videos continues to hit the mark, thank you God for Pastor Chuck's ministry.

[@charlesndungu2498]

Corrected by this sermon, Lord have mercy on me. Blessed 👍👍

[@PastorChuck]

Wonderful!

[@robertmiller812]

I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.

[@Bikepacker]

Glory to God! Make me a servant.

[@defendingthegospel721]

I have been looking around online and it is disturbing to see how many people are confused about this topic. Those who are in favor of wearing some kind of hat want others to believe what they believe. And act as if those who are not wearing something on their heads are either missing out on something or that they allegedly have the “truth” The only agreement I have with such is that using the excuse of culture to not follow God’s words is a mistake. But neither does it mean that wearing a head covering is necessarily true. Paul gives a reason as to why women should cover their heads with LONG HAIR. Paul never mentions the word “head covering” so to say that he does is an error. The head covering movement have taken the reasons for women to keep their hair long and men’s short and made it their own. The reasons for a woman to cover her head with long hair is found in the order of creation as so noted in verses 8 and 9. Yet the Head Covering Movement (HCM) use this for their own doctrine. But they do this illogically because if the covering stems from Creation then how can they claim to use it as evidence to wear a MANUFACTURED veil or hat? It should be obvious that it had to be something natural like hair. So their reasoning fails immediately. The headship of Christ over man and the headship of man over the woman is another reason to keep the hair length appropriate yet the HCM take it for themselves as a reason to wear a veil. I have noticed that the HCM also tend to blame everything on the feminist movement as if they cannot provide enough evidence to prove “biblically” that a veil is a requirement. The typical argument is that since many (BUT NOT ALL) churches had women wearing something on their heads for a long enough time then this somehow legitimizes their beliefs. But this is not proof of a doctrine. Doctrine requires scripture not the amount of people or the length of time a doctrine was believed. If that were in any way true then ALL doctrines preached on the pulpits like purgatory, popery, indulgences etc are legitimate because they have the time and amount of people that believe in these and other doctrines today. So it doesn’t matter if grandma wore a thing on her head or believed in some other doctrine if it cannot be proven that they were biblically legit. If you truly read and study the word God and without ANY BIAS God will show you that this idea of head coverings is not a legitimate practice or doctrinal. But if you disregard the facts then it is more likely that you will convince yourself that God told you to do it. So if you misunderstand what Paul was really talking about then you will think that by doing this in order to be obedient is something we all ought to do. So being obedient is right and true but if you got the first part wrong then you will be pushing a false doctrine and telling others to do the same, albeit without malice but ignorantly.

[@underdogfox]

Nice one ❤

[@edwardbarnhart1698]

Step 7 prayer, bill Wilson

[@TruthWillSetYouFREE-]

Is the Bible fashioned according to culture?

[@philipbuckley759]

seeking the truth is a mark, of carnality......really, in whose book.....Jude 3.3 3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

[@earlsiebold536]

In the ancient tabernacle there was a veil that hung between the holy place and the Holy of Holies. The holy place was where man could go and the Holy of Holies was where the Glory of God rested. The same applies to God's new tabernacle which is we Christians. The glory of man remains veiled. The Glory of God is unveiled. This transcends culture. It is not just long hair. It is a veil worn by women and not by men.

[@AnthonyGranda-yq6fo]

I don’t see how or why you would be connecting the veil that hung in the holy place and veils that some women wear on their heads today? Where are you getting veils worn by women? Verse 15 states most evidently that long hair is the covering. We should just take the scripture as it is written and not start combining things that don’t really relate, esp if there is a lack of evidence.

[@earlsiebold536]

@@AnthonyGranda-yq6fo The word used in I Corinthians 11 that describes what a woman should wear is the same word as used to describe what separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holys. However if you are trying to argue about this we can always look at how the women of Corinth that actually received Paul's letter reacted. They were native Greek speakers so they understood all the cultural meanings and the nuances in the words written. Eye witnesses of the Corinthian Church said that the women were veiled and the men were bareheaded. As Jude says "The faith once delivered". For 2000 years this was the practice of the Christian Church which suddenly you think is wrong. Well I disagree and your continued attempts to change simply puts you into the contentious category. The Church has no other practice.

[@AnthonyGranda-yq6fo]

@@earlsiebold536 I’m sorry but you are confusing me. What do mean what a woman should wear? Where does it say “wear” I Corinthians 11? Since you seem to be a stickler for words like veil which is normally a good thing then how do you come up with “wear” when it isn’t there? Furthermore, when does Paul use the word veil? He mentions for sure that a woman’s head should be covered but he doesn’t use the word veil. So we are left with what the surrounding verses talk about. And since hair is referenced in verses 4, 5, 14 and 15 it only makes sense that Paul is making us understand that long hair is the covering. And the last thing (which you should pay attention to) is that you are trying to associate the veil in the temple with veils that some women wear on their heads simply because they use the same word. Why would that matter? It doesn’t make any sense. What does using the same word have to do with each other? I’m sure there are many words that are the same yet it doesn’t mean that they are somehow supposed to be linked. This is a very flawed logic. If we are to look at how the women of Corinth that actually received Paul's letter reacted, then what is the chapter or verse to look at? If there are native Greek speakers so they understood all the cultural meanings and the nuances in the words written, then who are they? Where are we to read that in the Bible? If there were eye witnesses of the Corinthian Church said that the women were veiled and the men were bareheaded, then who are these eye witnesses. How come you don’t name anyone or say where to look? You claim that the practice of veils was for 2000 years but don’t precisely quote scripture to prove it as a biblical doctrine. How can anyone be sure that what you are saying is true? If you’re going to make claim after claim you should be ready to prove it otherwise it seems like you are making up things.

[@earlsiebold536]

@@AnthonyGranda-yq6fo Nice dodge. Next time make it a ram. Too funny! Try look at what the ancient Corinthians did after they received Paul's letter. It is a sure way to know what Paul meant in the letter. Funnily enough we have the word of Tertullian telling us that the women of Corinth WORE veils in accordance to Paul's letter.

[@earlsiebold536]

@@AnthonyGranda-yq6fo I simply used it as an explanation of the word used. What women are to wear and what was in the temple/tabernacle is the same word. It is made of cloth and it hangs down. It is not hair.

[@kiyomima-ro3209]

i am a female, nondenominational Christian, who attends a Calvary Chapel. i love my church and pastor Chuck is wonderful, however, i am disappointed that we don't teach the truth about head covering. Jesus trandscends culture. Paul gave a reason for headcovering prior to mentioning it, which is clear that the reason is the ordained order of creation, found in Genesis. Should Paul have said the reason was the culture of the day, it'd be reasonable to read over it. But the clear reason given is the headship of Christ over man, and the headship of man over woman. Also, in the very beginning of 1 Corinthians, while he is writing to the church of God at Corinth, he is also addressing "all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." i believe we fall under that latter category. It is unfortunate that the early femenist movement, as well as war time, changing fashion trends, what have you, have caused us to forget head covering, not to mention modesty as worship to the Lord. It was still very much unheard of for a woman to pray uncovered in my great grandmother's day in the early 1900s. It has so quickly faded away into the background, that i had absolutely no idea about head covering. i believed what i was taught about it not being necessary because it was the culture of the day. But recently, as i read and studied, the Lord convicted my heart with a simple verse: Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The desires of our Lord for us does not change with the culture. Not changing with the culture is what makes our God set apart from the little g's! 😃🙌🥰 He is trustworthy, steadfast, and ever so faithful. What He says stands the test of time! 😃🙌🥰❤️🙌🙌❤️‍🔥❤️‍🔥❤️‍🔥❤️‍🔥❤️‍🔥🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌🙌😃😃😃😃😃 i don't see Paul say do this for a time, do this in Corinth, or do this because of the culture. i read that he says do this because of the perfect order Yahweh ordained from the beginning of time, do this to honour the authority over you, do this because you are the glory and honour of your husband, do this to glorify and honour God, do this because of the angels.

[@robertmiller812]

I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.

[@GodsOath_com]

Here is what is correct and you will not experience it unless you deal with deliverance from demons: As Christ gives authority to men and women, if a woman is married her head is her husband and his authority flows to her under Christ if she is submitted to her husband. They are one. In the Greek, it says the woman DESERVES authority on her head because of the angels, and it means her husbands authority flows to her. This chapter is mistranslated conveniently by men who desire to control. Joel said God would have menservants and maidservants. Maidservants are unmarried women who carry as much authority as a man because they are submitted to Christ just as men, but have not submitted themselves under a man's authority. Paul called them virgins. God calls women just as he calls men. And Paul had a problem understanding the marriage relationship as he never had such a relationship. It is a test of men's hearts in the New Testament as to how they will interpret these verses. Jesus never spoke against women, even the evil prophetess in Revelation of Thyatira, he gave her time to repent without removing her from the pulpit, but she failed to repent as many men have also failed, then she was removed as they were also. Do not get caught up in the error of men who desire to control people.

[@AnthonyGranda-yq6fo]

May I ask how you reached the idea about husbands or wives for that matter in this section of the Bible? Though I agree that Christ gave men and women authority so why mention married people? This section seems more toward all men and women especially since Paul says verbatim all men and all women in verses 4 and 5. Not to mention the reference to creation which must include all of mankind both single and married. I think that some of your points may be right on some other section of the Bible, but this one refers to everyone. Just a friendly help.

[@philipbuckley759]

is the covering, here a veil...

[@philipbuckley759]

it is interesting to have these presentations, because, much too late, one finds that this individual does not really teach the Bible....such a shame.....

[@williamjacksonvillejackson987]

Are you that chuck didn't teach the bible or am I misunderstanding

[@philipbuckley759]

seems to be another false teaching.....that of culture....he does not refer to culture but divine authority, or chain, of command, if you will....another example of a false teaching, from this denomination....

[@TruthWillSetYouFREE-]

Because they have grown up to many years without the veil now to cover up by veiling its hard Many say long hair is the cover

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

@@TruthWillSetYouFREE- 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 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. 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? Verses 8 and 9 also gives us another understanding that Paul must have been offering us a couple of examples because he throws 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 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, which is another reason why hair 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. 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. * 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. Some have argued that the covering is Jesus or the woman’s husband. But that does not make sense because of the usage of the words long hair, shorn and shaven. Not to mention the fact that it wouldn’t make sense. Therefore do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long 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.

[@oahukiteboarder808]

Wrong. 3:10 again 10:50 culture

[@philipbuckley759]

no call, to action, on this teaching......so what is the message.....yeah, it is the Bible.....but no response is necessary...

[@philipbuckley759]

long hair....evidently the Bible is not really clear of what it is trying to convey......