Does the Bible Command Women to Wear Veils?

[@ReligionForBreakfast]

Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/religionforbreakfast Watch The Getaway here!: nebula.tv/videos/getaway-the-snitch-or-snitch?ref=religionforbreakfast

[@RobespierreThePoof]

Oh man. This topic. Good luck with the comments. Sometimes, I really wish religious studies scholars would just come out and say very directly, "This isn't complex. Paul is using numerous logical fallacies and should not be read, therefore, as a reliable source of wisdom, much less anything resembling religious or moral law." You came oh-so-close to saying so. "Argument from nature" "This passage is 'complex' 'fractured' etc..." (quoting other scholars) But not all listeners understand the meaning or subtext of those statements. Let's be honest. Paul is full of misogyny and has "interesting" thoughts of the submission of slaves to their masters. He also has a totally unhinged reaction to those early Christians who continued the rite of circumcision, telling them to castrate themselves. At a certain point, you have to question why anyone is still taking his writings seriously as anything OTHER than a historical primary source for research into the lives of early Christians.

[@Theggman83]

Dude.. verse 16 says "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." ... There's the answer.

[@ShonMardani]

If a woman covers her head it means she is not available, if a man covers his head it means he is submissive to power. Pray is " پول بده - pool-bede " means "Give Me Money" which was a normal business transactions and compensation for work, but homeless and poor turned it into begging for money. If a woman pray (ask for money) without head covering it could mean that she is available and needs money.

[@edelgyn2699]

The content on Nebula looks great, but it's not free. Let's face it, Nebula is owned by people who use it as a means of making money - it's a market place! Offering me 40% off something still means you're expecting me to pay to view your content. The advantage of YT is that people on low incomes are able to enjoy free access to a wide variety of educational content and communicate with people all over the world. Be honest, you're just another person looking to earn income from video content...

[@edelgyn2699]

@@Theggman83 Yeah, he just kept repeating the same concepts to pad out a video around 25 minutes, I doubt he's genuinely interested in discussing the subject matter... 🤷🏽‍♂

[@drhall343]

Does the Bible command women to wear veils? -Me before the video: I'm not sure. -Me after the video: I'm still not sure, but in a more informed way.

[@overloookable]

This is why I consider learning to be substance abuse

[@GizzyDillespee]

Many great tragedies were catalyzed by informed confusion

[@j3suis1337]

@@overloookable It's addictive too...

[@Talon19]

I’m more concerned with what JESUS commanded than what “the Bible says”. After all, Jesus fulfilled and completed the Law. So while the Law is useful for historical reference, it in no way guides people to live according to Jesus’ teachings or prevent or ensure salvation.

[@wes4736]

​@@Talon19- But this isn't just some work of the Moseic Law that's been arbitrarily clung to over the millennia. This was a nearly universal practice in some way, shape, or form until the 1960s. From the traditional veil, to the translucent Mantilla, to bonnets, and Easter Hats. The only reason why this seems so confusing now is because almost everyone in the developed world chose to abandon it.

[@EricGoebelbecker]

"Hair style theorists base their arguments on a few strands of evidence." I see what you did there.

[@VJMorph]

LOL came to the comments just to say that Hahaha

[@Volundur9567]

They really need to comb through a lot of information to get to the root of this

[@boomjykeo2]

It’s really important to separate the truth from the lice

[@GoodLordMeBored]

I too immediately noticed him weave that in. Well done!

[@isaiah3872]

This entire thread was witty 😂😂

[@danielmanwiller9158]

“Now to be clear, Paul is not being clear” 👌😂

[@OceanusHelios]

"Now to be clear, Paul wasn't being the Fashion Police here, excpet he was just being the Fashion Police here."

[@NotIdefix]

Christianity would be much better if Paul was never considered a "Christian"

[@Sxcheschka]

@@NotIdefix Paul was not a nice person.

[@exaucemayunga22]

​@@NotIdefix Paul single handedly shaped Christianity

[@johnmcnally7812]

@@exaucemayunga22 For the worse.

[@MogalyBogal]

Paul would be gutted to find out everyone pictures Jesus with long hair now

[@Maxinestabile]

I think Paul would be gutted if he heard any of Jesus opinions on anything since most of what he said does not reflect what Jesus said at all

[@egonomics352]

@@Maxinestabilewrong

[@justinjozokos1699]

@@Maxinestabile Amen. That wasn’t Jesus he met out in the wilderness on the road to Damascus….

[@Maxinestabile]

@@egonomics352 thank you for your in-depth response. All the evidence for your claims that you gave was really well researched. I’m surprised someone could know so much about theology.

[@Maxinestabile]

@@justinjozokos1699 if you’re being serious are you Christian because if you’re a Christian who doesn’t believe in Paul as a prophet then I actually am very curious to hear your opinions on Christianity if you’re ok with having a discussion

[@TJ-vh2ps]

"Because of the Angels" is my new favorite answer to any question

[@progidy7]

Because of the angelic implications...

[@modusoperandiofsatan]

@@progidy7 Because of my angel a$$...

[@saniainez]

1+1? _Because of the angels_

[@Carewolf]

i love he views the angels as sexual predators.

[@Carewolf]

Angles are then basically the invisible man from The Boys.

[@ryanmunro4438]

A couple interesting side points: •Many liturgical traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran etc.) still believe angels are present in worship. •Paul furthers his argument saying that if anyone wants to argue about veiling, they shouldn’t because all churches had this practice at the time •Many women in churches only stopped wearing veils (or hats in some Protestant churches) in the 1960s, around the time the National Organization for Women organized a veil burning.

[@Nusrich_2006]

Yep. Even in the Church of England, seeing women wear hats in church - even small ones, like fascinators - was pretty common, as my grandmother explained to me. It surprises me that it did just vanish; not sure where I stand on the issue, but holding fast to St. Paul’s Letter is probably the best thing to do.

[@charlesiragui2473]

And this tradition of hats in church was also part of secular society's conventions. Men, in Western nations, were supposed to remove their hats when entering a building/home, while women could keep wearing them. It was considered rude for a man to even speak to a woman outdoors with his hat not at least having been lifted and indoors at all.

[@davidhowe6905]

@@charlesiragui2473 (UK) Reminds me of my great uncle Bill (born 1888), while on a car journey (c.1970), raising his hat when stopping to ask directions from a lady. I only wear a hat for warmth or protection from the Sun, but still feel the urge to remove it when entering a building.

[@pansepot1490]

⁠@@davidhowe6905 gosh I wish all those KZbinrs who film themselves indoors wearing baseball caps (often backward), beanies, cowboy hats, etc. felt the same urge. 😂 Bald guys get a pass but those with hair don’t need warmth or protection from the sun indoors. 😃

[@JohnMinehan-lx9ts]

@@davidhowe6905 Unless you are carrying a weapon . . . .

[@yrobtsvt]

I'm a religious scholar specializing in another time and place and this video really gives so much food for thought. There is so much cultural context that goes unspoken when we read religious texts. Veiling might be hard for Paul to articulate but it would have been very visible and meaningful inside an early Christian church, and we have to look to gentile Roman culture to understand it.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

In the towns and cities of India, one can see many STRAY COWS wandering around, displaying their teats. Similarly, in the Western cities, one can see women wandering the dangerous streets alone, displaying their bosoms and other bodily parts. Such loose women are no better than STRAY COWS.

[@backyardsounds]

The first Christians were mostly Jewish though, not gentile.

[@arkady0]

@@backyardsoundsbut Paul appears to be a relatively Hellenized Jew writing to churches with both Jewish and Gentile members so it would be a mistake to ignore the Roman context.

[@venerable9077]

​@backyardsounds Judea and Syria were heavily influenced by Hellenistic culture, this influence was visible in its intellectuals and aristocrats, it wouldn't be a stretch to argue many Jews were hellenized by the time the Romans conquered the region

[@GizzyDillespee]

Also, in addition to the stuff here and after 11:23 in the video... Paul was usually writing to a very specific community. And like a politician, he seemed to tailor his message to the specific audience, rather than expecting his various letters to be collected in a book for a general audience. That can be easy to forget.

[@LiShuBen]

In African American churches, it’s very common for older women to wear hats or head coverings.

[@justchilling704]

True but we don’t view it as dogma

[@redhot2976]

@@justchilling704?

[@exaucemayunga22]

Yeah that's because they're old and used to wearing hats. It's not for religious reasons

[@legodavid9260]

In India head coverings are still very common in Churches.

[@justchilling704]

@@redhot2976 I’m saying in Black churches women don’t have to wear hats.

[@MrARock001]

Interviewer: "So, what would you say is a woman's sexiest feature?" First Century Roman Man: "Oh, top-of-head for sure. Some go for ankles, or wrists, all of which are obviously obscene, but for me, it's gotta be that top-of-head. Nothing gets my chariot charging like seeing where a woman's hair meets her scalp."

[@MarkusAldawn]

Be still my beating heart!

[@hive_indicator318]

I'm going to use "get my chariot charging" in conversation. If I remember

[@lemonadecupcakes]

*gasp* "hey! Quit, checking out my follicles!" But seriously.

[@Passions5555]

Hey! Eyes down here *gestures to my face"

[@bretfisher7286]

😂

[@aiocafea]

as an orthodox christian, i am not surprised, but thank you so much for the explanation! i actually thought the rules were similar to islam but we just started ignoring them, i didn't know it was so tied to praying and prophesising thank you!

[@partqfavor]

@@aiocafea it's likely that the islamic use of veiling is related to similar concepts, not only as a religion inspired by judaism/eastern christianity but also as a religion from a region where it may be culturally common

[@SnailShoes]

​​@@partqfavorwasn't part of Islams to do with Umar (Mohammeds BFF) being a tad peculiar in a moment? Iirc, either Quran or Hadiths mention it. I imagine that along with historic Christian reason, that the practice stuck. In the Hadiths, I just went back to check. Umar requested Mohammed for a revelation to veil women. That wasn't done. Umar went and spied on Mohammeds wife when she went outside relieve herself. Made himself known to her. She tells Mohammed. Next day, Allah gave the revelation to Mohammed to cover women.

[@vsedai]

'Muslims did not practice veiling until they decided to follow the rich Christians.

[@aiocafea]

@@partqfavor yeah now it makes a lot of sense that they are offshoots of just similar cultural practices

[@knate44]

So I'm not a Quranic expert, there's just a lot of Muslims in my community, but from what I understand it's less that the Qur'an says women have to wear a veil or be punished it is more that it is seen as modest and pious to do so and is a way for a Muslim woman to show her faithfulness to Allah. It's only been a recent thing when men started jockeying for political power that "western" rulers started passing bans on the hijab and other coverings seeing them as outdated and degrading, and in retaliation "eastern" men started to force women to be covered to protect women and girls from the evil influences of the "west". Obviously there's more to that as cultural attitudes interact with religious practices, but generally speaking it is encouraged but not required for women to veil, and there definitely aren't different requirements for hijab vs chador vs burka or anything like that until you get to the interpretations part.

[@Inabin]

When I was a kid, I went to church with a girl who believed that she was supposed to have her head covered, but was nervous about expressing that belief to the rest if the youth group, so she just wore a ball cap all the time.

[@Iffysiffy1524]

I'm both amazed and amused at this. A novel solution

[@nanemoon9968]

That is really interesting, because going to church wearing a baseball cap would get you immediately kicked out in todays churches in Rome. So many conflicts just because of a piece of fabric

[@hullie7529]

​@@nanemoon9968An American friend of mine (Evangelical) went to visit a Catholic cathedral here and he entered with a baseball cap but he was just asked to remove it.

[@duncanluciak5516]

Protect yourself from the sun, folks.

[@joogies]

literally

[@jasonbell9212]

And The Son

[@manfredconnor3194]

@@jasonbell9212 Nice one!

[@TwisterTornado]

​@@jasonbell9212 No, I don't have a problem with the guy who said "cast the first stone".

[@battyboio]

Real

[@DrVictorVasconcelos]

People will generally not understand why scholars find passages to be incomprehensible when given in their language because the process of translation "fixes" the most grievous grammatical and structural problems based on the translator's opinion.

[@bensrandomshows1482]

What you said was incomprehensible

[@BombaJead]

​@@bensrandomshows1482They are saying that the reason people don't find indecipherable passages as opposed to scholars is because the later read the texts in their original language while the former read translations where the translator already did the deciphering for them. At least that is my interpretation of what they wrote.

[@LoudWaffle]

@@bensrandomshows1482 Which part don't you understand? I found it very straightforward.

[@CatBarefield]

Agreed…

[@tennicksalvarez9079]

​@@FleurPillager'no' ?

[@danielmalinen6337]

In Finland, it has traditionally been interpreted that Paul meant long hair by the veil because hair is a human's natural veil. I don't know when or how this interpretation was arrived at, but it is certain that part of the cultural and historical context was lost when Christianity arrived in Finland and eventually the hair interpretation also became part of Finnish folk poetry. This interpretation became a matter of dispute during the 20th century, when short hairstyles were allowed for women and long hair for men, but the dispute ended with the fact that the length of hair can be decided according to each individual's discretion. However, this information is not something important and significant, but a fun piece of history nonetheless.

[@tiryaclearsong421]

I grew up in an Apostolic Pentecostal church in the US that believed a woman's covering is her uncut hair. We had a lot of bizarre traditions if hair had to be cut that seem straight out of Appalachian folk cultural practice. I find it interesting that different regions came up with a similar idea but possibly a different application.

[@justchilling704]

⁠@@tiryaclearsong421Lol I’ve seen/heard of this.

[@justchilling704]

This is the view I was taught growing up.

[@Kaede-Sasaki]

If hair is the veil and men must pray with their heads uncovered, this would imply that males must shave their heads completely but may wear wigs when not praying. 😂 Having short hair for men is not good enough because it says head uncovered not shoulders or neck.

[@Kaede-Sasaki]

...

[@mefistopheles]

Has anyone else noticed the higher quality editing of this video? Love the new format for citing sources, the animation of the character cutout and the overall smoothness of the video! Good on you, Sir!❤

[@wompa70]

Whatever he was actually saying, I bet the Corinthians knew what he meant. You even see this with Shakespeare. Some of the meaning behind his writings are completely lost on modern audiences. References to color or people being like certain animals means something totally different today.

[@KasumiRINA]

It depends, "Even now, now, very now, an old black ram is tupping your white ewe." is pretty clear for example.

[@kathleenwoods8416]

That's a factor with any work of age or region, but that doesn't change the use of those historical facts in reference to any give subject.

[@ritawilbur6128]

About interpretation: when I told World religions, I would tell my students, "I'm going to give you a one word text that would seem to be very simple and straightforward. Yet this text is also subject to differing interpretations." It was a stop sign. Full stop? Rolling stop? What is no one is around? What if you're making a right turn? Yes, EVERY text must be interpreted! Ah Paul; he was not a theologian, yet all this theology gets based on him. But what about the practice of Jewish men covering their heads in prayer? The bible does mandate the tallit. What was the practice in Paul's time? Were there Jews in the Corinthian church?

[@ihatespam2]

Paul was a crank who was anti Jewish establishment. His whole cult version of Jesus is counter to Jesus and jabs at Pharisees.

[@demos113]

It was standard here in N. Ireland in the 70s and some of the Protestant groups still do it with hats instead. edit: this is in churches.

[@lubumbashi6666]

Both Protestant and Catholic Irish women wore headscarves into the 1980s, especially at mass. The veil was not worn like rhe Muslim Hijab, it was a scarf tied with a knot under the chin. Outside of mass it was optional but common enough, especially to protect a hair do during inclement weather.

[@Czaroslaw]

I'm Roman Catholic. I was taught that men were obliged to not have any headwear on when in temple, but for women this rule does not exist and instead it is up to them if they want to cover their heads.

[@JohnMinehan-lx9ts]

There was a rule that women had to wear a hat prior to 1968.

[@JohnMinehan-lx9ts]

There was a rule that women had to wear a hat prior to 1968.

[@Ggdivhjkjl]

What you were taught is a submission to the pride of women who refused to let their expensive hairdos be ruined on Sundays.

[@Scipio_Americanus]

You went to a Roman Catholic temple?🤔

[@mattandkim17]

Evangelicals: “We must not conform to cultural norms!” Also evangelicals: “This difficult Bible passage can easily be explained by appealing to ancient cultural norms.”

[@AmachiEligwe]

because that's the context of the passage, you can't read anything without understanding its linguistic context.

[@EmmisonMike]

For this I'd look at "Women in Worship in Corinth" by Lucy Peppiatt. She has a pretty modern and interesting assertion that this passage, like a handful of other Pauline texts, is in fact a response to veils rather than a whole-cloth argument, that Corinth is making a big deal about hair length and head coverings, and that this can tie to the general concern of the letter as a whole: the Corinthians have an inflated sense of their own holiness. If men are the head of women, as the father is the head of christ, we need to remember that both the father and christ are equally God. a straight-read of hierarchy here is essentially Arianism. We should also remember that Paul "shaved his head upon leaving) in acts 12, implying he took a vow until his departure. a normal Nazarite vow would mean refrain from cutting hair, so this could be him pointing out that it was fine when he had long hair, so what's the deal about connecting it to gender now? Finally in verse 16, we can read "we have no such custom" as "this isn't a problem with the other churches, why are you being so weird about this?" It's not a perfect explanation of Peppiatt's book, and i'm sure her book isn't as watertight as it seems, but especially in this context, i think it's beneficial to have a female theolgogian's perspective.

[@professorhaystacks6606]

I read "we have no such custom" meaning "no such custom for it being normal for women to shave their head." I also read that as implying "this is not for all time but is sensitive to custom."

[@justchilling704]

This is the view I hold too. Paul was a scholar and proud Jew, he knew the scriptures very well and would not say men having long hair is shameful as a consequence. Samson, and other nizerites weren’t seen as shameful neither was Absalom, in fact he seemed to be noted and his long curly hair praised. Further more Jesus may very well have had long hair.

[@miguelatkinson]

​@@justchilling704 Paul wasn't a Jew

[@نجمة-ت8د]

@@miguelatkinsonhe was

[@funwithrandomnesable]

An interesting interpretation that I was taught in a religious studies class in university is that verses 3-10 are a quotation while verses 11-16 are a rebuttal; Paul is advocating *against* head covering for women. Theologian Lucy Peppiat talks more about this in her 2015 paper "Women and Worship at Corinth : Paul’s Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians". It's not a very popular interpretation but I find it very convincing, and it explains why the passage is so disjointed.

[@justchilling704]

This is correct we see the same thing with his response on women speaking.

[@ihatespam2]

Another great fail communicating the message of the Bible. Hardly omnipotent

[@judyshoaf448]

I am in my 70s and grew up Catholic. When I was young, a head covering was mandatory in church for females over a certain age, and men had to remove their hats in church (whether stopping in for a casual prayer or attending a service). I don't recall any such provisions having to do with praying at home (e.g. a "Family Rosary," which was a big deal in our parish for a few years. Even when we were little, my sister and I got a hat to wear to church for Easter, and I have always assumed that the "Easter Parade" reflects the idea that this was one day a year when all the Christians went to church. Gradually however, when I was in high school, it became the practice to place on the head a round piece of lace, covering only to top of the head (and not disturbing the bouffant hairdos of the day). This was especially convenient for schoolgirls who had chapel services because you could literally fold it up and put it in your pocket. However, we did not use them for prayer in the classrooms, so the sense was not "Veil yourself when you pray," but "veil yourself to honor the sacred premises." Anyway, I found all the pictures of Catholic women unveiled interesting since at that time we seemed to be the only denomination who covered our heads. As an adult, I taught in an orthodox Hebrew school one year, and found that unmarried women could show their hair, but married women had to keep it for their husbands' sight only (like the Roman who divorced his wife); however, the husbands lost out because the wives wore wigs in public. I am wondering whether Paul's combination of confusion and anxiety here doesn't have to do with the status of unmarried women. After all, he was promoting celibacy for Christians. Could he have been concerned to make sure that unmarried women used veils while praying?

[@AntonOfTheWoods]

I have long been fascinated with the bible but I never get more than a few pages in before giving up, in spite of how important it is for understanding the modern world. You make it not only bearable, you make understanding/interpreting it a pleasure. Thank you!

[@RogersMgmtGroup]

I suggest starting by reading Matthew, then John beginning to end. Start with the story of Jesus. The rest of the Bible puts Jesus in context, before and after his life and resurrection.

[@KasumiRINA]

​@@RogersMgmtGroupGospels tell a really simple story, so do some Old Testament books as long as you don't get into those long chapters with just names.and numbers. Story of Exodus is my favorite, it's very straightforward and doesn't really need different interpretations... Jonas is my fav of.thw prophets dude just didn't want the job.

[@katrinam6795]

I read the bible several times and really enjoyed it. Except for the Leviticus records lol. Try seeing it as a historische document, as voices from the past.

[@Laticia1990]

I think most western christians haven't read the bible cover to cover. Don't feel bad. Leviticus and Numbers are a slough to get through. Ezekiel is a wild book though.

[@rachelefiore9974]

Head covering while praying was common in Italy, especially in rural areas, my grandmother used to do it and many still do

[@Notreallyhereanymore]

I was in estonia and went to an orthodox church and saw women wearing headscarves.

[@Pavlos_Charalambous]

It's most a habit of older women nowadays, it's not mandatory

[@PetroBeherha]

Don't feel bad. Even Peter and the other Apostles thought Paul was being weird.

[@justchilling704]

He wasn’t, in all likelihood he’s quoting and responding to the Corinthians, this is why he refuted the women are subservient to men nonsense. Only reasons this is the case is bc Paul a freaking Pharisee scholar would be making big mistakes about what the Old Testament teaches.

[@ihatespam2]

Weird is being nice, he was a crank creating a cult

[@andrewternet8370]

@@justchilling704Lmao the Pharisees aren’t wrong. Christ literally says the Pharisees sit I. The seat of Moses and you should do what they say. People usually don’t understand that Paul, a self-proclaimed Pharisee, is making a Talmudic argument here. Wordplay is part of the process

[@justchilling704]

@@andrewternet8370 It’s clear you did not read or fully comprehend my reply.

[@andrewternet8370]

@@justchilling704 alr if you say so

[@tarttooth6022]

Paul was just up in his feelings about balding.

[@cultofdis]

Wouldn't he prefer to mandate veils for men then? That way he could cover his bald spot and be like "it's not weird, God said to do this, you're weird for not doing it."

[@rustomkanishka]

Don't Jews also have a little skull cap? It kinda fits over the bald patch.

[@fabricdragon]

i think the "cover when praying or prophesying" goes well into "pray always" as well as the carry over from Judaic and other practices. (and of course in Judaism there are prayers that can be said for almost ANY action) i was a medieval reenactment person, and got used to the "you cover your hair all the time!" as a grown woman, you wore veils, or snoods, or hats or something as part of being dressed- it was... just "normal"

[@michaelshelton5488]

I just discovered Dan McLellan because of his interview on Esoterica and a day or two later, you quote him in a video. 😮

[@samrobertson7535]

It's interesting that veiling for women may have been a practice confined to the upper classes in the classical Mediterannean. The same was true for many parts of the Islamic world, particularly Central Asia. The wearing of the burqa -- or the paranja, as the variety worn in Turkestan is called -- was historically limited to upper-class urban women; veiling was comparatively rarer in rural areas. This comes down to economics really -- a full-body veil is an expensive article of clothing, especially when ornamented, that was likely unaffordable for the lower classes. Furthermore, upper-class women did not have to contribute as much labor to the household, particularly labor outside the home (going to the market, wage-earning, etc.), meaning that they didn't have to go through the cumbersome process of putting on the full veil as often in order to leave the home as often. The full-body veil may therefore have been a mark of distinction, showing that upper-class women had the luxury of wearing such a restrictive, intricate outfit.

[@jmariagarcia]

“Few strands of evidence” 😂 nice.

[@Carlos-ln8fd]

Yeah I remember attending Catholic mass in the US once and was surprised by how many young women used head coverings during prayer but took it off afterwards.

[@cloneguy77]

This is very interesting. When I was looking at this verse before my confirmation, my pastor argued that Paul was not arguing for head coverings for women, but instead, refuting this argument. When he says previously that women should wear head coverings, he justifies the argument on the basis that woman came from man, and is thus subordinated to man. But he then seems to refute this argument by saying ""nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God". Or, that if the argument for women's subordination to men (and head coverings) is based on Woman originating from man, this logic is contradicted by all men originating from (being born of) women. I was taught that this meant Paul was repeating an argument made by contemporaries but then arguing against it. I did not realize this was not the standard interpretation. I really enjoyed the video, thank you!

[@servnava6601]

There's also the simple fact that this was 1 letter written to 1 community freaking with their own set of issues. Yes there was some circulation of these letters but it was not assured and if this was a very important mandate to Paul he would have repeated it more than 1 time. I have christian friends in Delhi, it is very important to them to dress modestly because every day they are surrounded by people that will judge them, possibly to the point of violence if they don't dress that way. My friends in Mumbai? Couldn't care less, that is not a danger in their culture and they can dress much less conservativly

[@KasumiRINA]

This. Every time someone quotes Paul out of context, I ask, WHO THIS EPISTLE TO? Now, are YOU a Corinthian/Roman/Ethesian? It's VERY clear Epistles to, say, Jews, have very different context to those sent to gentile churches and those differed between each other too.

[@Kaede-Sasaki]

​​@@KasumiRINA My name isn't Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John (particularly since these are all dudes). Does the Bible apply to me at all? 😂

[@Kaede-Sasaki]

..

[@albertito77]

We know from early church history that the Corinthians responded to this letter by... the women wearing actual head coverings/men not. All available evidence shows that this was a universal practice until second wave feminism

[@flyingdutchman3755]

​@@Kaede-Sasaki Yes, it does. Those names refer to the books' authors name. They wrote those books about Jesus' life from their own perspectives. The books of 1-2 Corinthians, Ephesians, Romans, etc were letters written by Paul to respective cities' christians/churches to guide them and tackle different problems and challenges they faced. While the letters were written for specific purposes to each cities, they stll give important and significant teachings for all christians.

[@charlesiragui2473]

The practice of female head covering in many cultures seems to be related to demonstrating chastity, sexual modesty, warding off male sexual attention. However, women perhaps everywhere also make these head coverings beautiful, attracting attention, enhancing their attractiveness. Humans are complicated.

[@OceanusHelios]

It is more related to vanity. When you have long hair and the wind or the rain catches it, and you don''t have time to curl it, comb it, or brush it...which will leave loose hair everywhere....you put something on that hair to tame it. You think hairspray was everywhere in ancient Rome? Throughtout most cultures women have tended to wear their hair longer. Women also cover their hair because women are terrible to other women: picking on their hair, and the way they dress, what they do, and every single choide another woman makes. So, in the setting of a temple where everybody judges each other, it is just...well...easier.

[@charlesiragui2473]

@@OceanusHelios Interesting points! You make me think of Japanese movies where the women are planting rice and always wear scarves. Probably wrapping the hair is safer for work, not getting the hair snagged in anything.

[@dehn6581]

The earliest writings we have discuss them items demonstrating status, much like said in the video - married women in wealthy, powerful families were expected to veil, with some horrific laws having been in place for prostituted and enslaved women who were caught wearing veils including public beatings and hot pitch being poured over their heads. Whether they were made adornments to enhance beauty tends to be more on whether it's more the woman's own status being signified or the status or her family, and how much freedom is had - the more it signifies the status of another and the less freedom, the less likely they're made into adornments.

[@jemts5586]

Well, people like pretty things, and most like to look good.

[@Tymbus]

When we visited churches in Spain in the Sixties, my mother put a head scarf on just out of respect (She was a Presbyterian)

[@kokuinomusume]

I'm Spanish, and after the Second Vatican Council the only mantillas you'll see here in mainstream churches* are the women in "manola" outfits during Holy Week processions and possibly the mother of the bride or groom in weddings. And some nuns, except few nuns wear wimples in normal life nowadays, either. * making space for a handful of traditionalists and some special events like royal weddings or papal ceremonies -- though lately queen Letizia has been bareheaded even when visiting the Pope.

[@JoseGomez-n4k]

@@kokuinomusumeit’s such a shame. The mantilla is such a lovely garment. I would love if women continued to wear veils in church but it doesn’t have to be seen anymore as having to do with propriety but as a fashion

[@MossyMozart]

As a small child I remember seeing Catholic women wearing handkerchiefs on their heads when going into the nearby church. I was always puzzled and hoped that they used clean ones.

[@markandrzejak997]

Paul is writing to all these communities so we only get a one-sided conversation. Are there any/many writings to Paul that were the cause of his responses?

[@MathewAlden]

Afaik they have all been lost to time.

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

12:54 the “main man/head of the household” still has a head covering in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Nestorian Churches to this day. In the western Catholic Church, the priest can wear the zucchetto during parts of the Mass. The bishop will alternate between wearing his zucchetto and mitre at different points of the Mass. Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox clergy will wear mitres/skufias/kamilavka during different parts of the Divine Liturgy. Nestorian Christians, Coptic Orthodox, and Chaldean/Coptic Catholics will have similar head garments worn by their priests/bishops that look even more like “veils.” It seems to me that the command against men wearing head coverings during prayer WAS to signify that the priest/bishop is the “head” of the congregation, because he was the only “dude with a hat.”

[@kathyjohnson2043]

Seems like all of these men are not following the teachings of Paul.

[@rafiqjennings5262]

If women have long hair and men cannot have long hair, then why is Jesus betrayed with long hair?

[@marksieving7925]

I assume you mean "portrayed." The depictions of Jesus with long hair came from later periods when long hair on men was fashionable. The earliest depictions of Jesus showed him with a typical Roman short hair style. Paul made the mistake that many still make of mistaking current local fashion for a natural, universal standard.

[@rafiqjennings5262]

@@marksieving7925 Yes, I meant “portrayed” and Thanks.

[@jessethorns121]

@@marksieving7925why would Jesus want to cut the hair that he causes to grow on himself

[@carloswater7]

I highly doubt Jesus had long hair.

[@orneryoccultist9680]

In the Islamic tradition, men should not have long hair, only women. Muhammad had hair down to his shoulders at times. It depends on the tradition’s definition of “long” when it comes to hair. Shoulder length hair seems long to me, but it wasn’t to Muhammad’s companions.

[@TheAltair716]

This episode recalled memories from when I still attended Church (Catholic, Poland) as a child. I come from a small village in southern Poland, older Women always covered their hair when attending church. It's possible this tradition of covering hair survived in homogenis societies. Men also always remove their head covering when entering church, this still happens, not only in small villages but I think everywhere here in Poland.

[@carsonianthegreat4672]

Lots of young Catholic women in America veil. It’s usually the boomers that don’t.

[@riteshyeddu]

We aren't exactly homogenous but this happens in Indian churches too.

[@Nick19904]

Hey Andrew, I just realized that I have a number of your books you display on your bookshelf. The More New Testament Apacrypha by Tony Burke, the Pseudepigrapha books by Charlesworth, and the Apocryphal New Testament by Elliott.

[@thewb8329]

Before Vatican II head veils were required in Catholic Masses. Now only some conservative Catholic Churches require them but it is still optional. Just another example of how traditions religions have that had origins from what you discussed.

[@MelpyMelperson]

Even as a little kid I was like "Paul is stupid. Samson had long hair and that was his strength.". Paula sexist. What's hard to understand

[@Scipio_Americanus]

Something that never happened

[@r21167]

​@@Scipio_Americanus what do you mean?

[@ivanos_95]

The most strict, or the oldest tradition within Christianity, that is the Orthodox tradition, doesn't associate the hair-covering with sexuality at all, and enforces it only when a woman is participating in a sacred event, or entering a sacred place.

[@JoseGomez-n4k]

Catholic is just as old as orthodox

[@jmariagarcia]

And Paul was also responding to a cultural context. So that begs the question: when the context changes, does the response also change? And I personally think the answer has to be yes.

[@eirrenia]

Absolutely! There have been times and places where wearing shoes with red heels literally indicated your status as a s*x worker. Today if you were before a judge on charges of sexual misconduct and tried to use the defense “but your Honor, she was wearing red heels!”, not only would you get the book thrown at you, no one would have a clue what you’re talking about. How you dress always sends a message about you, whether it’s regarding status, culture, activities, values, religion, sexuality, politics, interests, etcetera. But what specific items of apparel (or lack thereof) actually _mean_ does not have a fixed value. There are certain scarf/hat styles I would love to wear (especially on bad hair days) but I won’t because it would not only be disrespectful in our current context, but would be a form of lying, of indicating something that just isn’t true.

[@jmariagarcia]

@@eirrenia great summary of basic cultural competency!!

[@larrylouie]

In the Philippines, some older women and laywomen still wears veils (belo) during masses, processions, and daily prayers...

[@lovedbythesun]

Ain't no woman came from a man's body. In the womb, we are virtually female until about 20-something days when the Y kicks in and turns males male. That's why men also have nipples. Female is the base form. Long hair is not degrading for men in any regard, in fact is cited as a signifier and prestige in many cultures.

[@Scipio_Americanus]

Thanks big girl🙄

[@emalee8366]

I was just arguing with a friend of mine about the requirement of interpreting the texts as part of the process. He argued that the meaning is plain, and I'm complaining about nothing. Also, I love McClellan

[@GoodLordMeBored]

I am Catholic and from Southern India where culturally women use the end of their sari or a shawl to cover their heads during Mass, while attending church or religious gatherings and including prayer at home. I thought in the western world/US this was a same practice up until Vatican 2 but not sure.

[@Anshulhe]

The thing you missed is according to the Bible you being a woman is an inferior creature under man. You must obey everything man says, you don't have the right to criticize

[@awalkthroughtorah6897]

From a different standpoint: the passage lists the authority of God over man, and man in authority over his family/ wife as PROTECTION. So it could be a a simple as a woman needing the headship covering of a male family member if she is to pray or speak publicly. It is also warned by Paul that a woman should be quiet in church. However, when delved into, it is admonishing men to teach their wives at home so they don’t need to interrupt the meeting with questions. Men generally had more access to formal education than women did. However we also need to remember that Jesus chose common men as some of his disciples. So anyone can be called. Women in leadership in scripture include Judith, Deborah, and Pricilla. Pricilla is listed before her husband because she was the evangelist. As her headship covering, he was in ministry along side her as a team.

[@justayoutuber1906]

“Any time you see two groups of people who really hate each other, chances are good they're wearing different kind of hats. Keep an eye on that, it might be important. Personally I would never want to be a member of any group where you either have to wear a hat, or you can't wear a hat."” ― George Carlin

[@zbeer570]

At 6:14 you put a Shulchan Aruch (Jewish legal text from the 1500s) behind a quotation from the Mishnah (second century CE). Funny mistake, but please be accurate to how you are displaying these texts in the future!

[@drqwyxz3588]

he is suspiciously cautious when he talks about Islam

[@MinnieTricks]

Was the practice of tonsure an outcome of Paul saying men in prayer should not have their head covered?

[@jps0117]

I never understood the obsession of religions with hair and headgear.

[@iamdanieloliveira]

Each group may rationalize it differently, but I believe this tendency comes from the fact that the first thing you see on a person is their face/head, so a distinct head gear/hair style/face painting is the quickest way to set one group of people apart from another. It's also not just religions that do that: militaries still have different head gears to differentiate between different regiments and between ranks, hats were used until recently as a way to signal your social class (top hat, bowler hat, fedora), etc.

[@j0anbug]

because the top of the head/hair is seen the part of the body closest to heaven.

[@elchivo3770]

Paul on head coverings: "If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God." - 1 Corinthians 11:16

[@jps0117]

@@iamdanieloliveira Good points. Thanks.

[@ladycrowley1413]

Well, Women's hair plays a big role in their femininity and their attractiveness, men being men always were possessive and didn't want anyone coveting their women. And since religions were created by men ( not Men ) it makes sense.

[@ocaollaidhe]

In Ireland in my experience (18), I went to a Catholic school and people would've considered it rude for a man not to remove a hat or headcovering when entering a church.

[@donnadumare]

And Jewish men have to wear caps, but women don't have to wear it. Go figure.

[@TheRealWilliamWhite]

In the US, the southern US especially, it's customary to remove your hat in any building. Nowadays it's not as much of a thing even in many churches.

[@TwisterTornado]

​@@donnadumare Sometimes the women wear wigs.

[@ocaollaidhe]

​@@TheRealWilliamWhite yeah same here, I think I would habitually remove my hat anytime going indoors

[@AidanNanquil]

thank you for the youtube chapters in this video, they helped me to outline the different themes covered and arguments explained, but also were funny and amusing in some bits!

[@gyrrgibbs305]

People had some interesting ideas about anatomy. I am inspired to look into this concept of hair storing fluids.

[@LimeyLassen]

The sexual transpiration hypothesis, I love it

[@peterspoto5092]

In my experience, most of the time when this passage is discussed among protestants, the "dress modesty" interpretation is what is followed.

[@onbearfeet]

Ah, the "every woman should dress like my mother" sermon. I know it well. (As a kid, I used to make a game out of figuring out when the speaker would have been a child and what women his mother's age would have been wearing at the time. It was always illuminating to hear a speaker who was a child in the 1950s insist that women should never wear pants while a speaker who was a child in the 1970s railed against women baring their midriffs.)

[@mahatmarandy5977]

There is a fairly commonly held hypothesis. That first and second Corinthians are actually composed of anywhere from 3 to 6 separate epistles that were edited together by the Corinthian church just for ease of handling them and copying them. Is it possible that Paul incoherence in this passage might be related to such an edit job? Like hypothetically, he addressed the subject in letter and then addressed it again in a slightly different way in a subsequent letter, and editor might try to put those two sections together in a way that comes across as confusing.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Very clear and well done video by the way!

[@RevRod92]

Sorry, I didn't realize men's hair just stops growing at a certain point and that women's hair is too tough to be cut. You know, nature.

[@abeytagrl5161]

The fact that one should not add to or take away from the Torah (Deut 4:2) speaks to the fact that this is Paul’s opinion or advice suitable for a specific time and place.

[@KD400_]

Absolutely not. If he was alive today u would see his harsh criticism towards women who dont wear it. U just don't like it like most women today. Me personally it shouldn't be a requirement as long hair is enough

[@stargatis]

Well if the argument was “unusually fractured” isn’t that a clue that it was poorly added by later editors?

[@MathewAlden]

Fractured arguments can be poorly added by the original author too. It's not evidence either way. 🤷

[@An_Egregore]

Alt interp: Paul is not asking a rhetorical question in either the positive or negative. He's saying it's up to the audience. He goes on to explain That a woman's long hair is a natural veil... Which kinda falls in line with the "come as you are" theme.

[@Cotillion308]

Religion and hats always give me a good laugh.

[@bkucenski]

The NRSUVE version makes it abundantly clear that the woman has authority over her head. As in, she can make her own decisions. Paul is not picking a side, he's telling the men to stop bossing women around because no church of God has any custom about what women should do with their head.

[@AbdulKhader-786]

Paul was the one who invented the doctrine that men should bare their heads. But the original teaching is for men to cover their head out of reverence to Heaven, especially when praying. This is why we Muslims cover our head, usually with a skullcap. Paul said men should bare their head as a sign of their glory, but Islam teaches that men should cover their head as a sign of respect and humility

[@JoseGomez-n4k]

What do Muslims think about Paul then

[@AmachiEligwe]

"Paul said men should bare their head as a sign of their glory" no he said as a sign of God's glory.

[@AmachiEligwe]

@@JoseGomez-n4k They say he corrupted the gospel. quite similar to mormons and new agers in that respect.

[@trikitrikitriki]

In church, I was taught that Paul's main concern was in men being unveiled because Roman pagan men covered their heads when involved in religious activities. The women part was said to be about having long hair. So, a hybrid of two separate arguments.

[@jeanfalconer6377]

19:35😊 such a straight faced pun!

[@JeffinBville]

Andrew, I do follow you (and many others) on Nebula but, as there is no facilities for interaction there, I need to come back to YT to comment on a video or, even to let the producer know that I've liked it.

[@nostalgic_808]

🤍 Thank you for this information 🤍

[@zacharycurrie3708]

You didn't discuss the last verse of the section: if anyone is contentious, we have no such custom. That's usually the verse quoted to explain why head coverings are not mandatory.

[@wendyleeconnelly2939]

Religions cannot be reduced to the content of their sacred texts. Fundamentalists do try, though.

[@lisaboban]

I was a Christian for decades and it never occurred to me how much of my own experience, culture and interpretation I was bringing to the text. Through videos from you and other scholars I was able to slowly, painfully let go of those ideas and let the text speak for itself. It really is possible to teach an old dog new tricks!

[@jkang7265]

13:45 Absolutely excellent photo of Sarah Ruden and her colleague haha

[@susanwozniak6354]

Many years ago, when Michael Wood presented his series on Troy, he made an off-hand remark about the wind and said how it must have wreaked havoc on Helen's complexion. That idea stuck with me for several years, despite the Trojan War not being close to the Biblical peoples in both terms of time and geography. Sometime later, another historian remarked that the Quran is more about being a Bedouin than about being a Muslim. As desert dwellers, the Bedouin women wore veils while the men wrapped up their hair in a keffiyeh and grew beards. Without water for frequent shampooing, covering the head was part of personal care. Much later, kitchen maids in Europe covered their heads to avoid smoky aromas. It would seem that cleanliness was the first reason to veil heads. That has nothing to do with men and covering, unless, the idea of a head covering could slip during a duel and cause a man to lose his life. That's pure speculation.

[@jedbradshaw8073]

13:38 Excellent squishy dog spotted

[@matthewmoser1284]

I really appreciate the effort and work you put into this. And I want to preface my opinion by noting I'm not anywhere CLOSE to a Biblical scholar. However, I personally hold to the idea that Paul's PURPOSE as an early church leader is important to consider in all his writings. Paul himself has sometimes clarified that which comes from God, and that which comes from his own wisdom or advice. This is an important distinction because Paul is probably one of the BEST-placed individuals in his time to make rulings and judgements on "church law". Because Paul was an expert in both Roman AND Jewish law. And since Christianity at the time existed at the nexus of both Roman and Jewish law, Paul is AUTOMATICALLY the best candidate for a Christian leader. I mention this because we have to ask ourselves why it was so important for the early leader of the church to have these qualifications? And the answer to me seems to be that Paul was needed to allow the church to grow in its crucial early stages while the church was still protected. Yes, PROTECTED. Since the Roman legal position was that Christianity was a Jewish sect, and since Judaism was a legally protected religion at the time, Christianity was given a few decades of brief peace to grow and spread. This would have been far more difficult if the Roman's persecuted Christians straight out the gate. Paul's purpose as a church leader at this time, therefore, seems to be to hold back Roman ire for as long as possible while the church grows. In many of Paul's letters, Corinthians among them, he's admonishing different churches for their behavior. Paul makes a LOT of comments about the Corinthian churches behavior, and in particular their women. He not only comments on their hair and veils, but also comments on the pleats of their dresses and skirts, the immodesty of certain hair styles, and how much jewelry they're wearing. Now I like the idea that Paul was trying to make a setting where everyone looks equal in church, but I think Paul had another purpose for his hard admonishments of the Corninthian women. He notes for example how inappropriate it is that women speak out of turn and question their men. To the highly Patriarchal Roman society, a bunch of crazy religious nutjobs whose women are questioning thr established order, would have been a threat to Roman society. The behavior of the Corinthian women was likely drawing the attention of the Roman authorities, and since Paul's job was to safely grow the church before the inevitable persecution under the later emperors, he was basically asking the Corinthian women to chill. Regardless of whether my theory is accurate or not, it's clear that Paul put a premium on blending in as much as possible with Roman customs at the time. Thus, his dictats towards the early church should be taken in that context. This was how Christian women should behave and dress, because this is how ROMAN women should behave and dress. This is why I don't have a problem with the lack of head coverings or veils in modern churches; Paul's letter was REACTIONARY, not holy scripture. And that reaction is no longer necessary. Modern western churches exist in modern western society, who has no problem with women wearing head coverings or not. Ultimately, from a small church perspective admittedly, these rules about how someone dresses are irrelevant to the question of salvation. I don't think women are going to Hell because they wore pleated skirts or have earrings. Because their relationship with CHRIST is what gets them into Heaven. So even if everything I argued before this is wrong, I think my point still stands that women aren't required to cover their heads anymore.

[@Inabin]

I remember the church I grew up in held that it was a prohibition against men growing out their hair and women cutting it short. I remember this very vividly because when I started growing out my hair, they got really upset about it. Little did they know that I was a woman after all.

[@josephine79]

This reminds me of how women wear veils during our sacred ceremonies in the temple, which includes sacred prayers given by a man who's head is not covered (the men not officiating the temple prayer have head coverings), and how we wear holy garments under our clothing (similar to the Jews) to remind us of our covenants we made with God in the temple which includes being morally clean - to only having sexual relations with our spouse - and to encourage modesty since we're required to cover the garment. The only difference is our women wear a veil only during temple ceremonies. When they aren't performing those they are only required to wear their holy garment under their clothing - those who have made sacred temple covenants with God. I could see the correlations for all of this throughout your video so it was really interesting to me. This was very well done and informative, thank you!

[@Vivisectus]

Odd, though. Paul says women should be silent in church in 1st Corinthians, but here they are told to wear a veil when praying and prophesying? Are they supposed to do that mutely?

[@sapphireBunny]

Paul pretty routinely slips in his own misogyny into his “advice” which tends to go against things shown prior in the bible and sometimes his own stuff. See the Deborah being one judges in the old testament and holding religious power over the chosen people of G*d, most being mentioned being men, BUT Paul says women shouldn’t have power over men in the church.

[@wartgin]

There are some theories that many times Paul is quoting from portions of the letters asking for his opinion on the issue and laying out the issues. According to this theory, that is why he seems to be giving opposite statements at times. He quotes the statement he thinks is problematic and then lays out his advice. The church to which he writes knows the contents of the letter they sent but we do not and there wasn't the same sort of punctuation marks or spacing to distinguish those portions at the time.

[@8784-l3b]

There are different theories on that. Probably, maybe, possibly, wives were sitting on the other side of the room and asking their husbands what such and such meant while the speaker was speaking. Paul possibly was just stating a basic idea to keep things orderly.

[@Vivisectus]

@@8784-l3b Heh the Bible accidentally incorporated the "first, some housekeeping notes" part of the speech and now there are all these Christians trying to work out how they should live based on it.

[@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.

[@GabrielEddy]

….because of the angels….

[@Wizzardofficialchannel]

That is straightforward

[@GabrielEddy]

@@Wizzardofficialchannel Indeed.

[@jenniferofholliston5426]

My grandma used to talk about how she belonged to a poker club. They would play poker all night, and the Catholic ladies would then put handkerchiefs on their heads and go to mass. (My grandma was a protestant. She would just go home to bed.) Early 20th century in the United States. As a child I wondered about the handkerchiefs.

[@KasumiRINA]

Looks pretty ridiculous BTW, it was a loophole to enter church when you don't have a scarf at hand, but the only thing you'd get without it is mean looks from old ladies so it's better just to avoid that nonsense and not worry about it.

[@Engelhafen]

Paul, as a former Jew would not have seen covering the head as a ‘pagan vibe’ - Jews cover their head as a reminder of the presence of God

[@AmachiEligwe]

well, maybe he was trying to distinct from both jews and pagans.

[@Ksrwilhelm]

Only about 100 years ago in Sweden it was customary for women to wear headscarves called "huckle". It was viewed as immodest or improper to not wear one. This custom lasted longer in the countryside.

[@BATCHARRO]

I know this isn't a very popular religious argument but... That's just like, his opinion, bro. I mean literally. He was just sending a letter urging for this, it's not a commandment, it's not like he's drawing from scripture or from like God's Word or anything, and he may well have not even been listened to at the time.

[@RuthvenMurgatroyd]

It's a cultural thing part of Christianity but I agree more peripheral. I would stand with Paul though.

[@RammusTheArmordillo]

I'm a big fan of Dan McClellan's work on other platform and it was a very nice surprise to see him cited on this video! Love it

[@jennslifeinhuntingtonwv2678]

I'm 61 years old and from West Virginia. I remember ladies wearing a doily on their head at church. 😂 so silly

[@teehee4096]

West Virginia... mountain mama! (Sorry, I had to 😂)

[@jennslifeinhuntingtonwv2678]

@teehee4096 it's okay lol

[@OceanusHelios]

And then go home and being vicious to their kids and everybody else around them as they gossipped about anything and everything?

[@jennslifeinhuntingtonwv2678]

@@OceanusHelios so true

[@ShonMardani]

If a woman covers her head it means she is not available for other men, if a man covers his head it means he is submissive to power. Pray is " پول بده - pool-bede " means "Give Me Money" which was a normal business transactions and compensation for work, but homeless and poor turned it into begging for money. If a woman pray (ask for money) without head covering it could mean that she is available and needs money.

[@SleepyPotterFan]

It’s interesting how Roman polytheists praying capite velato received specific condemnation while other polytheist elements from philosophies to holidays were incorporated.

[@Jennifer-cl1cl]

Another thing to keep in mind about hair coverings is that shampoo didn't exist then. Covering your hair kept it cleaner.

[@jedimmj11]

Soap did exist

[@Jennifer-cl1cl]

@@jedimmj11 Greeks and Romans of this era are actually kinda famous for not using soap for personal cleaning. They used hot water, oil, and a strigil - a curved tool which was scraped across the skin to remove the film left behind by the oil. The hot water slightly emulsified the olive oil, so all of the dirt and dead skin would get suspended in the water/oil mix. And then the strigil would scrape the mix off your skin, and all the dirt and stuff went with it. The only problem is that you can't really strigil your scalp - too much hair. It's why for much of history women have braided and covered their hair - it helps to keep the scalp clean. and helps keep the hair near your scalp from getting sweaty.

[@StraylightWintermute]

@@jedimmj11 soap was not used to wash hair, just like I hope you don't wash your hair with bar soap today! It's way too drying for hair. Europeans didn't start developing shampoo until the British brought back the idea from India, where they used ingredients like soap nuts that have gentle saponins rather than harsh lye. Soap was used for clothing more than skin, because back then it would have been even more alkaline than nice soap is today.

[@Jennifer-cl1cl]

@@StraylightWintermute Lye-based soap on your scalp would be super painful for a lot of people. Scalp skin is thin and sensitive, and lye soap can cause chemical burns on skin if you leave it on too long.

[@ShonMardani]

You are correct, that is why they were shaving the slaves hair. If a woman covers her head it means she is not available for other men, if a man covers his head it means he is submissive to power. Pray is " پول بده - pool-bede " means "Give Me Money" which was a normal business transactions and compensation for work, but homeless and poor turned it into begging for money. If a woman pray (ask for money) without head covering it could mean that she is available and needs money.

[@KyleMaxwell]

Love seeing Dan McLellan pop up in your videos. I was taught when I was a JW that women should wear a head covering whenever they are carrying out some religious activity that normally would be reserved for a man.

[@CharlieEarthRoast]

0:44 All you need to know is the reason not all Christian Women follow this rule is because they pick and choose which parts to follow, depending on what is convenient for them.

[@CopticPrince-hh2yi]

western christian women

[@koberidesatthedoor3218]

EXACTLY

[@corsetedwasteland2630]

Grew up old school Church of Christ and wore veils. Had to keep one with me at all times so if someone prayed or we said grace at a restaurant or we had a get together with other church members, I could veil beforehand. Had one in nearly every color but could only wear white, black, or muted colors during church service. Obvs in CoC women can't really speak during service so prophesy wasn't an option. Because my hair was long my veils could be lace but women with shorter hair were supposed to wear solid opaque veils.

[@MsFitz134]

Ha your saying CoC threw me for a loop for a sec! My denomination is Community of Christ, and also uses "CoC" for short. But we're a progressive denomination with ordained women, and about to ordain our first female denominational president. So when I was skimming comments and saw "CoC" paired with veils and women not allowed to speak my pre-coffee brain was so confused. Now I see. Church of Christ. Yes. The whole carrying a veil around with you and only being allowed to wear lace if you have long hair is fascinating, I hadn't heard those particulars before.

[@hma237]

But nature *doesn't* give women longer hair than men. Why on earth wouldn't Paul have realized that, since all babies have very short hair at first & then later it's cut on boys & men? Did Paul mean something else by 'nature gives'? What do scholars say about that? Why wasn't that essential point even mentioned?

[@MathewAlden]

I mean, don't men bald faster/more? Theology aside, men on average DO have less head-hair than women.

[@AmachiEligwe]

when ancient authors say "nature" they more mean something like "normal inclination" than like just biological urges.

[@progidy7]

At 13:14 and 22:16, you quote a scholar and then agree with the assertion that Paul was addressing a local custom or issue. I think you should have included discussion of the last verse: > 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God. After the many arguments to veil, even after the argument from nature, Paul explicitly states that this is a universal commandment rather than a local custom.

[@701delbronx8]

I saw it as Paul’s attack on Judaism where Jews must have a head covering while praying

[@charlesiragui2473]

I was wondering the same thing. Paul attacked the continuation of many Jewish practices (kosher, circumcision) with the Christian movement, so this would be in line.