Join Dr. Nathan Smith and Pastor Mike Crump as they discuss the Bible, theology, and current events with a desire to exalt Christ and equip the church. New episodes drop every Tuesday morning.
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 use the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. Some will use the phrase “head covering” to claim that the passage refers to it when this phrase is not found in the verses within 1st Corinthians 11:1-16. One can find them separately but not together to mean a synthetic covering. Therefore, it would be disingenuous to say that it does. The passage includes the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions, then why would Paul say in verse 7… “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking/attractive) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. The answer of which should obviously be no. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look unattractive and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair while praying looks especially uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). The reason is that they are intermingling the word head in verse 3 that refers to authority with the other word “head” that is being used to refer to the literal head of the human body. One can easily dismiss their interpretation because it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband and that the context includes the idea of hair and the shaving and cutting thereof. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. Therefore there are no two coverings just one which Paul refers to as being covered which he means to be covered in long hair.
"Laws must rest on the Necessary Foundation of Morality."...Aristotle..."Woe to those who make Unjust Decrees/Laws." God...If Christians and Churches are NOT Seeking to Lead in Government and Form the Moral Tenor of Our Laws then the Vacuum that Exists will be filled by people who have an Anti Christian World View...And we will be Ruled by Tyrants...Both of these men are like the Ten Spies who led the Israelites into SIN...
How does one submit a question for discussion. I have been hearing that Dr. MacArthur teaches a "Lordship Salvation" gospel. I was wondering if this can be addressed? What is Lordship Salvation...
God's holiness speaks of his perfection and "otherliness" - meaning that he is not like us but above all created order ruling in purity and righteousness.
@@focused_onchrist Thank you. I agree. The reason I asked is that many portray Father, Son and Spirit as out there in the sky somewhere, aloof and displeased with humanity and unwilling to be exposed to or have anything to do with the depraved people that they created to be loved and to participate in the relationship and fellowship of the Triune God. It is such a joy and life transforming to learn that this Holy God has entered into our darkness and blindness and made us like Him, in His image and likeness. It was a joy to learn that the believers of the first several centuries were transformed by understanding what many of the church fathers affirmed in a variety of ways and words: He (God) became what we are, so that we would become what He is. In Jesus Christ His holiness, His glory, HIs righteousness and His very being He has given to us and included us into the relationship, fellowship and experience of Father, Son and Spirit. Gives a new meaning to be holy for I am holy, doesn't it. Thanks for responding.
Like it or not, Donald Trump is the Christian representative to the world. He says revenge is justified and none of his supporters protest and so the world sees that as agreement. Trump uses slander, innuendo, bullying, name calling and lies, of course, to further his cause and the MAGA Christians applaud. There is no Republican policy, it is Trump policy.
@@debraalgren1894 I wasn't speaking about Republicans vs Democrats, I was speaking about how Christians show that they are disciples. Jesus said, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35.) A Christian would not accept a policy of revenge for example without protesting. Trump has a well documented history that promotes revenge.
Having grown up in a carholic church and then moving onto a protestant one and then shuffling back and forth through different christian churches of different schisms. I learned that there are good and bad churches. Good and bad pastors and attendees. It is important to go to church in my opinion mainly for the social aspect. However. Be careful you do not fall into the trap of thinking only inside the religion and let the chirch dictate your life based kn their dogmas. The bible is the same but the interpretation is not. And yhe church sometimes works agianst your interests. So think critically and remember the main message Jesus taught us: love tht neighbor. No matter what.
I am very grateful for this podcast and the topics discussed here. The world is attacking from every side, and Christian Nationalism is one way that the world has tainted the church. This is an important topic, but the voices in favor of a muscular American Christianity drown out other viewpoints. We need resources like this, not to tell us what to think, but to equip us to be able to think about such topics biblically, humbly submitting to the illumination of the Spirit. Thank you, brothers, for your willingness to tackle the difficult topics that are pulling so many away.
Do you fellas realize the current claim is Yahweh and his sidekick son exist in the present? Oh, there are countless videos of christian and their stories of what god has said to them. Pastors and preachers speak about what a holy ghost or a lord character said to them. They are speaking in the present. Why are you focused on the bible times? That gives me the impression you think of these characters as only book characters.
@@atheistcomments Scripture proves itself to be very reliable, historically accurate as well. More so than many other documents from history that aren't questioned. Does it prove things are true? No, but does provide reliable evidence that it is. Up to you to believe it or not.
@@laserfalcon Do you even listen to the claims christians make and the stories they tell about what Yahweh/god/lord/holy Ghost and Jesus are doing in the present? Many talk about about direct communication and interactions. We are talking about characters claimed to exist in the present. Without those characters, the stories about them are fiction. Now realize, everything that is going on makes sense when you understand these characters are imaginary and the stories are fantasy fiction.
@@laserfalcon "Just because someone said the Lord spoke to them doesn't make it true." You are acknowledging that stories can be made up. That's totally true for humans. So, what does that tell you about the need for skepticism of stories of unfalsifiable supernatural claims? If some are lying about conversations with a character never demonstrated to exist in reality, all stories can be declared untrue until proven true and accurate to reality. Talk is cheap. Christians lie. I talk to them daily.
The Quran wasn't WRITTEN it's an oral tradition. The people at the time had it memorized by heart and the written version came later. It wasn't by one person it was by dozens of prophets and the Quran has stayed EXACTLY the same throughout that time. The bible has had so many releases and versions that the original meaning is almost completely lost because of political reasons. Kings removed the word Tyrant from the bible just so people wouldn't get ideas. Never seen someone so confidently wrong.
That is, honestly, my big problem with organized religion. I want to believe it’s all right but any math at all shows that something was missed. It could be the color of someone’s hair or the most important thing ever written. My faith in man is always weak and will remain so because our first instinct is control whether or not is meant for a good purpose. I don’t understand how we can base our entire life’s worth on a possible misrepresentation. I wish I could. I just can’t 😢
It’s a politically coined term, a bogeyman. Engaging in it is playing onto their game. Nothing wrong with staunch Christianity. Why is it only the Christian’s that needs to change their thinking and world views in every issues concerning our Christian civilisation?
As a teacher if I had a substitute on a test day and all my students got really similar answers/work. I would automatically assume it was because of my consistent teaching skills and all my students studied together. DEFINITELY NOT ACADEMIC DISHONESTY.
One witness? The Book of Mormon had over a dozen witnesses 😭 all of whom never relinquished their testimony of seeing and handling the book or being touched by angels. Many of them were known to be truthful people who never lie aswell. How are you so incorrect 😭
found the mormon! What you responded with has nothing to do with Joseph Smith being the sole author of the BOM. The test for the truthfulness of something is whether it agrees with God's previous revelation (Deut 13:1-3), not whether Joseph had 12+ friends who claimed the Book of Mormon was true. Repent and believe!
Hi. I just stumbled onto your channel and I love your content, and the spirit in which it is delivered! Thank you, and may the Lord continue to bless your ministry.
Pastors Mike and Nathan, Thank you for this episode! As a recent liberty law graduate I have enjoyed the HBC ministry for the past 3 years. This episode in particular for me and my collueges who are going into the legal world. Pastor Nathan i hope you come speak at liberty law's convocation again in the future. Also a book that shows the huge effects that christianity has had on legal development you may be interested in are Law and revolution parts 1 & 2 by Harold Berman.
I disagree that someone has already been Justified by faith before baptism because they have not gone thru the dead, Burial and the resurrection of Jesus Christ and haven't died into a spiritly death with Christ and because it come reality by faith in baptism in the working of God. Just how those romans died in Romans 6:4
Not at all. Unbelievers should feel welcomed and loved in a church. This conversation was more about the churches focus on Sunday morning being about the equipping and encouraging of believers. This specific clip was pointing to the very definition of "church" being people who have trusted in Jesus as their Savior. We pray that churches would lovingly welcome unbelievers who are seeking to understand the truth. I hope that is helpful.
You are to spread your experiences with the spirit not to find set up an authority. Share your experiences. Read the Bible for yourself. God shows you he is working in your life... HIS Spirit is is our teacher. DIscussing your position in the higharchy does not show others anything about God's Spirit in your life.
Westernized Christianity uses materialism to attract people to the immaterial and wonder why so many youth leave the church. "Whoever remembers the most verses gets this toy." The kids no longer focus on the verse but the toy.
In the bible at the beginning before jews and hebrews God rested on the 7th day. Then he gave the 10 commandments to everyone and the fourth commandment says remember-keep my Sabbath holy. Jesus and the apostles went to church on the 7the day. The catholic church changed it. So my question to you. You said the bible is the word of God yet we are following man’s changes to the law of God. So who do we obey God or a man?
Hey Thanks to RU-vid recommendations, I just found your podcast episode on current trends in church, and it's truly enlightening. Your exploration of contemporary church dynamics resonates deeply with the theme of building hope and personal encouragement on my dream interpretation channel. I just liked and subscribed. Keep inspiring us with your empowering discussions
Young ones, Catholicism is Mystery Babylon found in Revelation 17 with the commandment to come out of her in Revelation 18:4. She and her harlot daughters are an abomination to the Lord Jesus. I have paused and prayed for you and all who read this. He who has an ear, let him hear. Blessed be the name of the Lord.
Not sure why you are signaling out the Roman rite of the Catholic church... Here are all 24 rites recognized within the Catholic Church Latin (Roman) Rite Ambrosian Rite Braga Rite Mozarabic Rite Dominican Rite Carthusian Rite Carmelite Rite Premonstratensian Rite Norbertine Rite East Syrian Rite West Syrian Rite Armenian Rite Alexandrian Rite (Coptic, Ethiopian, and Eritrean) Byzantine Rite (Albanian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, Macedonian, Melkite, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukrainian) Antiochian Rite (Maronite, Syriac, Syro-Malankara, and Syro-Malabar) Chaldean Rite Armenian Rite Georgian Rite Antiochian-Maronite Rite Mozarabic Rite Anglican Use Personal Ordinariates Zaire Use Independent Rites We all make up His holy Catholic and apostolic church. The same one written about by the church fathers and where the remains of the apostles rest to this very day
@13:11 Same core aspects but two different expressions of church??? Jesus said He started one church I wonder what these core aspects are that your believe protestant churches share? I hear them brought up a lot but never seen this list
The "core concept" of ANY true Christian church is the firm belief and trust in the pure Gospel message of Salvation. That is that Jesus shed His blood and died as an atonement for our Sins, and that by having Faith in Him we are saved. This would also include NOT adding to the Gospel message, which Scripture also warns like in Galatians. "6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed."
“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” St. Augustine, (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]). “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18-19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” St. Cyprian of Carthage (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
