How Well do you know the Birth of Messiah? Answers

1. How would you describe the traditional biblical story of the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem?

The traditional picture has a tired and desperate Mary & Joseph trudging/rushing into Bethlehem. They are all alone, there’s no AAA Roadside Assistance, there’s no hospital, they know no one. All the Inn’s or Motel 6’s have No Vacancy and so thanks to the backhanded generosity of a sour innkeeper, Mary & Joseph are banished to the barn where she is already in labor and almost immediately has the baby Jesus. Then the Shepherds appear following a star because not far behind them are the 3 Kings bearing gifts. They all form a nice little huddle around the Manger and the baby Jesus. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this picture—it’s the most popular—but is it the most accurate to the biblical texts?

2. Were they traveling alone? What biblical evidence suggests they were not alone?

We get a few clues to suggest they were not traveling alone. First, in Luke 2, since everyone had to travel to their own hometown to register—it’s safe to assume that other people had to do some traveling to register as well. Second, Bethlehem was full of travelers—they had to get there somehow—they would have used the same roads that Mary & Joseph used. Third has to do with the time of year the events actually occurred which we’ll get to later—let’s just say that in order for them to get to Bethlehem, Mary & Joseph had to pass through Jerusalem (Bethlehem is about 5 miles South of Jerusalem whereas Nazareth is considerably north of Jerusalem)—Jerusalem was the center of political and religious life in Israel so pilgrims of all sorts were on the roads to Jerusalem all the time. Fourth, most people traveled in family groups or with friends whenever possible. You see evidence of Joseph & Mary doing this just a few verses later (Luke 2:41-44) when Jesus was 12 years old. Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem when J & M left for home. They were traveling in such a large group, they couldn’t see Jesus and assumed He was running around with someone else.

3. When was the baby born on their journey? See Luke 2:6
a. Mary barely made it into town
b. The first night
c. Several Days to Weeks Later

Luke 2:6 says “while they were there, the time came for the baby to be born”. The implication of that statement is that M & J arrived in Bethlehem and sometime before they went home, Jesus was born. Luke was a very precise writer—and even though he’s giving a quick summation of some things—if there was a panicked rush to get to Bethlehem, he could have said so. The language is of a much slower series of events. So the idea that she was in labor as they ran into Bethlehem, desperately pounding on doors is not particularly accurate. So they may have been there for a few days or even weeks before she went into labor. Given the later accounts of the Magi in Matthew—it’s obvious that J & M stayed in Bethlehem for a long time.

4. Does that change the nature of the location of Jesus’ birth if it happened some time later—in other words, couldn’t Joseph had found some other place after a while?

If they had been there for a few days at least, then the likelihood that Joseph couldn’t find any place to stay is a stretch. After some time, he would have been able to find something and they would not have been cast out to the animal pens. Why would they go there then? We’ll talk about that later.

5. Were Mary & Joseph alone while in Bethlehem? What is the likelihood that they knew anyone in town?

The traditional picture is them alone and afraid. But why were they going to Bethlehem in the first place? It was their family home. They both were of the line of David. Not all of the family would have moved away from Bethlehem. Some of them stuck around—and they would have had some good records or tradition of who is related to who and where they are in the line of potential successors for David’s throne. Family relationships and connections were important for that culture and Joseph or Mary probably had relatives that still lived there that they could have gone to and asked for a place to stay or help with the pregnancy. Yet if that were the case, why would they have to go out to the animals? That would be affected by several things one being the nature of the place they were staying. First, let’s look at something that isn’t obviously related, but it is.

6. In Luke 2, what is meant by the word “Inn”?

• Like a Motel 6
• Family Home
• Bed & Breakfast

If you didn’t know, Luke uses some of the best Greek in the New Testament, fitting for his life as a physician. He is precise in his words and this is important.  The answer requires us to look at the next questions together.  Because Luke uses the same word in Luke 2 and Luke 22

7. Luke 22:10-12—What was this room like?  

This is the Upper Room where Yeshua celebrated the Passover, the Last Supper, with His disciples.

8. Luke 2 & 22 use the same word with different translations. If Luke 22 is the better translation, how does that change the setting of Jesus’ birth?

In this passage, Jesus is preparing for the Passover feast and He sends Peter & John in to find the right place—He says—“He replied, "As you enter the city, a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house that he enters, 11 and say to the owner of the house, `The Teacher asks: Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?' 12 He will show you a large upper room, all furnished. Make preparations there." This “guestroom” was a large room that many houses had for family gatherings, meals, or visiting relatives—it was big, generally open and several families could sleep there at the same time. Interestingly, the word that Luke uses in ch. 22 translated “guestroom” is the same one used in ch. 2 translated “inn”.

The problem is that “inn” carries many different connotations—our mind pictures something like a Motel 6—large building with many small rooms that you can rent for the night. If Joseph was there for an extended stay—at least 33 days according to Leviticus 12 for Mary’s purification (Luke 2:22) this would quickly become an expensive venture. As shown by their sacrifice of 2 small doves in the temple and not a lamb—they may not have been well off financially—much less able to stay in a Bethlehem motel for several months. But if the word is not translated “Inn” but guestroom, then the situation changes. If they really had family in town, then that would have been the place they would have gone for lodging. And if the family’s upper room/guest room was full—it was probably full of other family. There’s a reason why all those family members would have been there in Bethlehem, which I’ll get to in just a moment. But it’s very likely that these people were not strangers but cousins, aunts, uncles, and others who would be traveling to Bethlehem.

9. Typically we see Mary & Joseph as being banished to the stable. How could it have been a good thing for them?

The problem wasn’t that they were alone and desperate, or that there were cruel, heartless innkeepers who wouldn’t bother to find them a spot—the greater problem was that there was a lot of people—and even a lot of family and friends is no place to have a baby! How many women do you know that want to have a baby in a crowded room where everybody and their dog could watch? Sure, some have given birth on a plane, in the mall, but certainly that wasn’t their first choice! So going to the room for animals—likely something built onto the house itself or even under the upper room—was a good thing, a helpful thing, a privacy thing. There, they won’t have to worry about people watching, kids tripping over them or all the other inconveniences a woman in labor would want to avoid. Not to mention all of the ceremonial uncleanness that a birth brings with it.

Similarly, since the birth didn’t happen the moment of arrival, I’m sure they had the opportunity to make sure the place was cleaned up or prepared for Mary to have a baby down there. Going to the stable was a good thing for Mary. The stable would have given privacy, if they were really around family, then Joseph would not have been the only attendant Mary had, but other related women who had been through the process before themselves. They may even have known a local mid-wife to assist in the delivery.

10. Was Jesus really born on December 25th? If not December 25th, is there a better alternative?

There is no mention of birth celebrations in the writings of early Christian writers such as Irenaeus (c. 130–200) or Tertullian (c. 160–225). Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264).  The earliest mention of December 25 as Jesus’ birthday comes from a mid 300’s AD Roman almanac that lists the death dates of various Christian bishops and martyrs. The first date listed, December 25, is marked: natus Christus in Betleem Judeae: “Christ was born in Bethlehem of Judea.

There is some evidence suggesting that December 25, was a chosen date that co-opted a pagan religious winter festival—Sol Invictus—the Victory of the Sun. Others suggest it’s based on a calculation assuming Yeshua’s conception is the same day as His death.  Nine months after His approximate death is late December.  Augustine wrote in On the Trinity (c. 399–419): “For he [Jesus] is believed to have been conceived on the 25th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid, neither before him nor since. But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25th.”

We do know that the shepherds were out to guard and assist their flocks in their deliveries. However there is a tradition that puts the flocks used at the Temple being raised in and around Bethlehem by a group shepherds aligned with or themselves Levites. These sheep would have been spotless & blameless for use as sacrifices and for purchase by those who had traveled and couldn’t bring their own with them or if what they brought didn’t qualify.

This all fits with the sacrificial system and particularly the Feasts of the LORD mentioned in Leviticus 23. The Feasts are His Appointed Times. Times when He wants to meet with His people. They also serve as dress rehearsals for the things He is going to do. God set up these Feasts to tell the story of Redemption found in the Messiah.

Three of these Feasts required all the men of Israel to travel to Jerusalem. In the spring, Passover and Shavuot—the Feast of Weeks what we call traditionally call Pentecost, and in the fall, Sukkot—Tabernacles. Families would often coordinate business and errands to Jerusalem around these scheduled Feast times. In which case—the reason that Bethlehem was crowded would not have just been because of the census—but because of all the travelers going to Jerusalem for a Feast day.

The roads packed with faithful Jewish men and women who were required to go to Jerusalem for the observance. So the image of the lone travelers is even more unlikely. It also makes the ceremonial uncleanness of the birth all the more significant--perhaps even excluding Joseph from assisting her if he intended to participate in the ceremonies at the Temple. The census was taken over a period of time (even years from its issuing) so there was not a hard deadline for Joseph to meet—so presumably, he combined his registration in Bethlehem with his regular/annual trips to Jerusalem.

11. What holy days on the biblical calendar require people to be in Jerusalem? See Leviticus 23. Could these help explain when Mary & Joseph may have traveled or whether they were alone on the journey?

There are 2 primary Feast days that are options for His birth. Passover & Tabernacles.
Passover:
One of the titles Jesus is given in Scripture is the “Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”. To participate in Passover, Jewish family had to sacrifice a year old male lamb. These sacrifices were so they could participate in the Seder meal commemorating the Jewish people’s deliverance from Egypt. The blood of the lamb placed over the door protected the family from the judgement of God passing through the land. In the same way, the blood of THE Lamb redeems us from being a slave to sin. That is what Yeshua, the Lamb of God was promised to do. Tabernacles:

One of the strongest hints that Yeshua was born at Tabernacles comes in the Gospel of John, one of the Gospels which doesn’t make any direct reference the birth of Yeshua or his parents. It comes in 1:14—“and the Word became flesh and dwelt [pitched His tent or Tabernacled] among us.”

Tabernacles is a picture of God dwelling with His people. It is 7 day Festival with an 8th added on. The 8th day represented the rule and reign of the Messianic King. It would make sense that Yeshua was born on the first day of Tabernacles and taken to the Temple on the 8th day in fulfilment of the Torah commands for His circumcision and a new Kingdom was inaugurated.

We are also commanded to Rejoice at Tabernacles which parallels the announcement of the angels to the Shepherds.  Luke 2:10 - But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid! For behold, I proclaim Good News to you, which will be great joy to all the people."

12. How did the Shepherds find Mary, Joseph & Jesus? Are you sure? See Luke 2:11-16

Ironically, even though the shepherds provided the most important element of the festival in terms of the sacrifices, by this time, shepherds were not high on the social ladder in Jewish society. They were often the fringe elements, not a part of the upscale, city community.
These were the elements called to be the first witnesses and first testifiers to the Messiah. Why them? In many ways, it was a call back to or a reminder of their roots. Shepherds may have been outsiders to the community, but they were the original foundation of the community. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob were all shepherds. As was Moses—as was the great King David. To reject the shepherds was to reject their roots. The community had not grown past them, they still needed them and in many ways, needed the simplicity of faith and trust in God they represented, which the Jewish community had once had, but had in many ways lost.
They do have an increased significance if they are Levitical shepherds taking care of the Temple flocks.

The traditional nativity scene has M & J, the shepherds and the wise men all gathered around a manger. Often, when you ask this question, many will say the shepherds were guided by the star, just like the wise men. But as we’ll get into in the next question—they didn’t get there on the same night of the birth (for that to happen, the “star” they saw would have to have appeared months before Jesus’ actual birth—God could have done this, btw). The shepherds were just told about the 2 signs—wrapped in cloths & lying in a manger. They didn’t get an address, a street name, or a general vicinity of where they would actually find the baby. There was no star mentioned in Luke that guided them to the right house. So, how did they know where to go? At most Bethlehem was a few thousand people—maybe they listened for the cries of a newborn. Maybe they looked for the only ones with a fire still lit. Maybe God picked them on the side of the town that they would reach first. Maybe they tried several places before finding the right one. Or, speculatively speaking, since this was M & J’s family town—what if these shepherds were relatives and merely went home first, or relatives who already knew they had a visitor who was expecting a baby. Shepherds returning from the fields probably would go into the animal’s room first. Interesting possibility.
 
13. How many Magi were there? What set them off? How long of a journey was it? See Matthew 2:1+

We sing, “We Three Kings” so it must be three, right? Tradition even gives us names. But Scripture never says how many Magi came, just that they brought 3 different types of gifts—gold, frankincense and myrrh. Ancient depictions, stained glass and such—teaching tools with limited room depicted one person to hold a gift each representing the different types. But again, by custom, most traveled in large groups. These were practically ambassadors and political representatives, some even describe them as the King Makers/Anointers as evidenced by the fact that they first went to Jerusalem and sought Herod. A small entourage, would not do for such dignitaries. The amount of their gifts was not necessarily something one man could carry despite the many inescapable pictures that suggest otherwise.

14. When did the Magi arrive? Thus how old was Jesus? See Matthew 2:16
a. They arrived the night he was born
b. Within a few days
c. Up to a year or more

As mentioned, unless the star appeared months before Jesus’ actual birth, there’s no way they could have been there the same night as the shepherds. In the east, the wise men saw a star that pointed them to a King being born to the kingdom of the Jews. They would have to see it, interpret it, decide what to do about it, prepare for the journey and then make the trip up the Euphrates river, west along the fertile crescent, then south through Syria and the coastal territories—a several month long journey. This would put Jesus a year old or more by the time of their arrival—they had to wait for circumcision. They also have to wait 30 days for Mary to be purified so she could make her offerings.

Another piece of evidence is that Herod later gave the orders to kill any boy under 2 years—you’ve got to figure that this is an effort to cover His bases and not miss anyone.

15. Why would the Magi care what was going on in Jerusalem?

For some reason, these Magi—practicing astrologers, interpreted their signs to point to the Kingdom of the Jews. But why would that sign have sent them off on such a long and uncertain journey? Hey, a new king in Israel… that’s nice… somebody hand me the remote.

Why would they care so much about the goings on in Israel that they would go there? It’s important to remember where they were supposed to be from. It is generally understood that these men from the east were in the Mesopotamian river valleys… between the Tigris & Euphrates rivers. What would have been prominent territories in the biblical kingdoms of Assyria, Babylonia & Persia. In other words, modern day Iraq and Iran

This is the general area and territory where the Jewish exiles were taken by different governments. Most of the Jews never returned home even after they were given special permission by King of Persia. They didn’t leave, but stayed with many keeping their faith, their traditions and even Scriptures. So there was an Old Testament witness and community where these Magi were from. If I’m not mistaken, even today some of these countries have a small Jewish population. So if nothing else, these Magi would have had access or awareness of Jewish teaching and Scripture—making the homeland important. With the influences of people like Daniel or Esther in high government—some may have begun to take them very seriously. They also could have been a part of the school of wise men that Daniel was put in charge of. In which case, they would have been trained in the Jewish scriptures and understandings of the universe.

Of course, another powerful possibility is that these men were themselves Jewish or had some Jewish heritage. In other words, their ancestors had watched other Jews pack up and go back to Jerusalem because they had a desire to be restored to God. I’m sure there were many who talked about it for generations, many who wondered what it would have been like if they had returned. In reading the scriptures, the psalms, the laments, the prophets and their heart for the land, the Temple, the Promise of God—even these Wise Men may have had their hearts wondering about the glory of the Temple. If they were themselves Jewish—it is an awesome reminder of God’s call to come home. Even though most stayed behind and didn’t return with the remnant, God still found a way to reach out to them—that hope that they had heard of, the promise of a Messiah for their people—was still something God would remind them of. And so their hearts—longing for the fulfillment of God, longing for the homeland, wondering if God would still be faithful to His promise, wondering if God would still allow them to be a part of it—drove their hearts to make such a long and uncertain Journey.

16. Why did they go to Herod first? Why was Herod threatened?

It’s no wonder they went to Jerusalem first. Jerusalem was the center of religious and political power. A future king would more likely be born to the current king. But God doesn’t work the way we think He should—the obvious is rarely what He uses. So they went to Jerusalem, alerted King Herod, gained further specifics from scripture—Micah 5:2 that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.

But there’s something else interesting here. It seems the star that started their journey did not guide them all along the way. If so, they would never have stopped or turned aside to Jerusalem. Maybe they couldn’t interpret what a stopped guiding star would look like. But in any event, they were asked by Herod to make a careful search for the child. If they were relying on the star at that point, then why would they have to “search”. But upon leaving Jerusalem, something changed—now the star was much more specific. In fact it led them and hovered over a specific house. This is no longer something high up in the sky unless it is using a powerful spotlight—but gently hovering over the exact place where they were staying. Again, Mary & Joseph had to stay for a while in Bethlehem. This would be an expensive venture if they had to “rent” or buy a place to stay, but would be easily accommodated by family. But the star directed them directly to their destination. This was the guidance of God they had hoped for. But I’ve always wondered, were they the only ones who could see the “star”? Wouldn’t Herod or his officials seen it and followed it to the baby Jesus? Which leads me to consider whether, at least this second, localized guidance was not a literal “star” but a manifestation of the Glory of God, perhaps the Holy Spirit alighting on the place like He did later at Jesus’ baptism, or possibly an angel. The original sight that started the journey could easily be too. Which could mean that only the Magi saw it. They eyes of faith were needed as well as the choice of God and whom He chooses to reveal it to. There's a common phrase--some say they have to see it to believe it--but some things have to be believed to be seen.

Remember, those on the road to Damascus with Paul had a vague sense of something happening, but couldn’t really tell you much about it, whereas Paul’s awareness was very acute and specific. But the Wise men were called home to Worship just as the Shepherds had been called. Both great and small were bowing before Jesus—God drew both the heritage and the remnant back to their Savior, the Messiah.

17. What holiday is mentioned in John 10:22 during the winter? Where was Jesus?

Feast of Dedication. Yeshua was in Jerusalem likely participating in the activities in some way

18. What is it called in the Jewish world today? What does this holiday commemorate?

Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights. It is an 8 day celebration that commemorates the rededication of the Altar of the Temple in 165 BC after it had been defiled by the occupying Greek forces.

19. What are the 4 Spring holidays or Feasts on the biblical calendar? What are the 3 Fall holidays? What message or story do they tell? See Leviticus 23
Spring
Passover
Unleavened Bread
Firstfruits
Shavuot, Weeks - Pentecost
Fall
1. Feast of Trumpets
2. Day of Atonement
3. Tabernacles

Again, there is so much in these birth narratives that we miss or read over because we think we know the story already or because our mind has been so cluttered by the popular depictions that we don’t study carefully what the text actually says. If you’ve made it this far, I hope that you have benefited from this breakdown of the text and related cultures.

How Well do you know the Birth of the Messiah?
There is so much in the birth narratives found in Matthew 1-2 & Luke 2 that we miss or read over because we think we know the story already or because our mind has been so cluttered by the popular depictions that we don’t study carefully what the text actually says.

1. How would you describe the traditional biblical story of the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem?

2. Were Joseph & Mary traveling alone? What biblical evidence suggests they were not alone?

3. When was the baby born on their journey?
a. Mary barely made it into town
b. The first night
c. Several days to weeks later
d. See Luke 2:6

4. Does that change the nature of the location of Jesus’ birth if it happened some time later—in other words, couldn’t Joseph had found some other place after a while?

5. Were Mary & Joseph alone while in Bethlehem? What is the likelihood that they knew anyone in town? Bethlehem means “House of ________________”

6. In Luke 2, what is meant by the word “Inn”?

• Like a Motel 6
• Family Home
• Bed & Breakfast

7. Luke 22:10-12—What was this room like?

8. Luke 2 & 22 use the same word with different translations. If Luke 22 is the better translation, how does that change the setting of Jesus’ birth?

9. Typically we see Mary & Joseph as being banished to the stable. How could it have been a good thing for her?

10. Was Jesus really born on December 25th? If not December 25th, is there a better alternative?

11. What holy days on the biblical calendar require people to be in Jerusalem? See Leviticus 23. Could these help explain when Mary & Joseph may have traveled or whether they were alone on the journey?

12. How did the Shepherds find Mary, Joseph & Jesus? Are you sure? See Luke 2:11-16 13. How many Magi were there? What set them off? How long of a journey was it? See Matthew 2:1+

13. When did the Magi arrive? Thus how old was Jesus? See Matthew 2:16
a. They arrived the night he was born
b. Within a few days
c. Up to a year or more

14. Does the text say how many Magi were there? Why would they care what was going on in Jerusalem?

15. Why did they go to Herod first? Why was Herod threatened?

16. What holiday is mentioned in John 10:22 during the winter? Where was Jesus?

17. What is it called in the Jewish world today? What does this holiday commemorate?

18. What are the 4 Spring holidays or Feasts on the biblical calendar? What are the 3 Fall holidays? What message or story do they tell? See Leviticus 23
1.____________________ 1. _____________________
2.____________________ 2. _____________________
3.____________________ 3. _____________________
4.____________________

Answers to all Questions in the next post

This one's going to be a long one--You are warned!

Common Questions Asked of Messianic believers by their friends and family.
What made you go to the Sabbath?

As a lifelong Baptist, we love to call ourselves, “People of the Book” meaning the Scriptures. And keep in mind, that when the New Testament speaks of the Scriptures, it means what came to be known as the Old Testament, the Torah/Law, the Neviim/Prophets, and the Ketuvim/Writings.  That’s only because the majority of what is called the New Testament hadn’t been written, much less collected yet.  That does not diminish the inspiration or authority of the Gospels or Apostolic writings in any way, only highlights the current understanding of the day.  We see this three-fold division in Luke 24:44-45

“Then He [Yeshua] said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you—everything written concerning Me in the Torah of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,”

Believers today like to champion ourselves like the Bereans from Acts who searched the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true. These Bereans were hearing new teaching, but it had to be consistent with what had already been revealed—right?

In other words, if Paul could not make the case from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ, that Yeshua is the Messiah, they would be right in rejecting what Paul taught.

Thankfully, Paul was consistent with what was written. Despite what many people think or teach today, the Apostle Paul did not invent or reinvent faith in Yeshua. He did not contradict or conflict with Yeshua's teachings or anything from the Tanakh.

But before they accepted Paul’s teachings, the Bereans went to the Scriptures to test him. The Scriptures were the standard, Paul was not. What Paul taught had to be submitted to the Scriptures.  The Bereans had the Scriptures and new how to search them.

We like to claim to be like them. So two questions that have become helpful to me in searching the Scriptures and comparing what we do and teach today are:

1. If something is in the Bible—a command to do—and we are not doing it—we need to ask why aren’t we doing it and when did we stop?
2. If something is not in the Bible—or a command not to do something—and we are doing it—we need to ask why are we and when did we start?

Bereans ask those kinds of questions because they want to worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth. I hope you do too.

Here's the problem. If someone wants to change something from the Scriptures—to not do something it says to do, or do something it says not to, to change some teaching or doctrine—the standard should be high.

If we are examining the Scriptures for guidance on a subject—the answer, reason or justification shouldn’t be something ambiguous, it shouldn’t be something questionable or debatable or just a description of something that happened—it should be a clear and definitive command.

Because we know that God is the same yesterday, today and forever. We know He is the LORD and He changest not. At least we claim to believe this.

So if something is going to change, if a command is going to change-- from what He says in the Bible—it has to be explicit. Previously you did this, now I want you to do this.
Everything we do as believers in our day should be found, should have a basis in the Scriptures. I hope you agree.

And if anything is going to change from life and practice in the Old Testament (OT), to the Church in the New Testament (NT), it should be explicit.
I
 am now leading a congregation that meets on the Sabbath. From time to time I get asked the question why we meet on Saturday and not Sunday? Isn’t Sunday the Lord’s Day?
I'll be honest, I didn’t set out to leave Sunday and go to the Sabbath. I have been on a journey that started slowly in 2006 and has continued ever since.  It took about 10 years before the Father dealt with me on the Sabbath. If He had started out with that issue, I probably would have rejected it and not gone much further because I was not really examining the Scriptures to see if what I had been taught and practiced was true. So I thank Him for His patience and wisdom.

Since it took me that long, I realize that this one article is not likely to convince you to agree with me, but perhaps it is the start of a larger conversation on some of our assumptions.
We must apply the Berean standards to this issue. In the OT, the Tanakh, we are commanded to “Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy”—we are told it is a sign, a distinguishing mark for God’s people that is to last for all the generations to come—a perpetual and lasting ordinance. The 7th Day Sabbath is to be a day of rest, of assembly, of discussing the Scriptures and passing on the blessing and legacy of faith to the younger generations. This is God’s declaration, established on His Authority and His Word.

The Sabbath is a commandment that is repeated hundreds of times throughout the Tanakh. The Father describes blessings for keeping it, and also describes consequences for breaking it.

So IF... in the post resurrection era, the day of assembly has changed to Sunday or the “Lord’s Day”—then it can only be changed by the same authority that established it. Only God has the authority to change a command He set forth by His Word.  No man, not any leader in the church or government can change “Thus sayeth the LORD”.   Only God has the authority to change the day of meeting—and such a change must to be explicit, must be clear.

Think of it like this—when you are sick, who sets the date and time of the appointment, you or the doctor? Typically, the Doctor sets the time and date. And if you want to see the Doctor, then you show up to that appointment. If you don't, it may be a while before another one is rescheduled. We don't have the authority to set the appointment for the doctor.

When it comes to the day of worship, the question becomes, do we see any such explicit and clear commands from Jesus or the NT telling His people to change to Sunday worship? I’ve read through the NT many times, as have most of you and the answer is no—there is no passage in the NT that explicitly or clearly says the church is to change from the Sabbath to Sunday, the first day of the week, as a day of worship.

There are, however, several passages used to justify such a change.  Let's look at these passages and concepts in the New Testament.

We observe that Jesus rose on the first day of the week.  True enough and Amen.  But is such a statement or observation a command or just a description? It is a description.

We see some of the apostles meeting on “the first day of the week” in Acts—and for the moment, I’ll give you that this is a correct translation and interpretation of that phrase—but again, at best, it is an observation and not a command.

These Describe a situation or circumstance, they do not Prescribe a new practice. It describes that they met on a certain day, but doesn’t say—and you should meet on that day too.

To come to this conclusion from such verses is to make the same mistake Mormons have made about polygamy. Just because the Bible doesn’t hide the descriptions of some of the Patriarchs practicing polygamy doesn’t mean God approves of it nor does it suggest that we have permission to practice it ourselves.

Description is not Prescription. These passages do not pass the necessary test to warrant making a change to an established and explicit command of God.

Again, if God was of a mind to change an established and repeated command like the Sabbath, He would, by His nature, have to be explicit to His people so there could be no confusion. That’s because no mere man, no prophet, nor any church leader like a Pope, has the authority to make such changes. Only the King.

Deuteronomy 13:1—“If a prophet or someone who has dreams arises among you and proclaims a sign or wonder to you, 2 and that sign or wonder he has promised you comes about, but he says, ‘Let us follow other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us worship them,’ 3 do not listen to that prophet’s words or to that dreamer. For the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul. 4 You must follow the Lord your God and fear Him. You must keep His commands and listen to His voice; you must worship Him and remain faithful to Him.”

No one but the Father, the King, has the authority to change the command.

Now don’t get me wrong… It’s not that we are not allowed to worship on Sunday—of course we can. We can and should worship on any or all days.

The biggest problem is not that the Church began worshiping on Sunday, but rather that we stopped worshiping on the Sabbath to the extent that doing so on the Sabbath became wrong and forbidden.

In moving to Sunday, the Church didn’t change the Sabbath, it remains the 7th day. They didn’t say “We are going to worship on Sunday,” and the Sabbath is still OK.

No, the move to Sunday was done as a replacement of the Sabbath. It wasn’t a change made that allowed anyone to continue worshiping on Saturday either. Rather, the through the authority of the Church Councils combined with the Roman government, an example of the uniting of Church and State, they made keeping the Sabbath illegal within the Roman empire for anyone claiming the name of Jesus. This officially occurred at the Council of Laodicea in 335 AD.

Though some had argued for the change in the 2nd & 3rd centuries, such writings apparently were not universally persuasive or accepted. Not everyone who claimed Jesus as their Savior had moved to Sunday worship, even after 3 centuries of practice and development.

After all, why would a decree or any threat of punishment be needed in 335 if by this time everyone in the body of Christ had accepted and practiced Sunday worship?

No, apparently, a significant portion of the believing community still practiced the 7th day Sabbath. After all the only reason to make a new law is to try and stop an ongoing behavior.
Why make a speed limit if no one is driving exceedingly fast? Why pass a voter fraud initiative if no one is trying to vote illegally.

No, such a decree from the Roman church only makes sense if they are trying to put a stop to believers meeting on the Sabbath throughout the Empire’s reach. So the idea that the Church had already, universally accepted Sunday worship doesn’t fit with the behavior we see.

We should also know that many of these efforts to distance the church from the Sabbath were closely tied to a rising antisemitism within the church. This paralleled an increasing acceptance of a theology called SuperSessionism or Replacement Theology in which the new Church community took the place of Israel in God’s plan and purposes.

Even in Paul’s day there was growing tension between the Jewish believers in Yeshua and the Gentile believers. Much of Romans is written to address those tensions. Some of the early church fathers—who are often quoted as authorities in the Sabbath debate—also had very atrocious things to say about the Jews, things we would be loathe to associate ourselves with today. A list of their statements about the Jews is not hard to find.

The push to remove Jewish vestiges from the developing Christianity came after the 1st century and the death of the last of the apostles. The Apostles were all Jewish, as were all but at most one of the writers of the New Testament, however, the Church became increasingly hostile toward anything that reminded them of Judaism and the Jews. Antisemitism rose up and reminders of the foundation of Christianity were being forced out.

By the Laodicean Council in 335 and the declaration on the Sabbath it is clear that:

• Antisemitism fueled it
• The Roman Church ordered it
• The Emperor’s Authority enforced it.

All three factors went in to making the change from Sabbath to Sunday.

Were these factors applied to a debate today and we witnessed one side using anti-Semitic reasoning to support their position, I believe we would reject it.

If  a change in church practice or belief came as an authoritative decree from the Roman Catholic Church, I suspect most in the Protestant traditions would say we are not bound to their decrees.

If the Government was used to strong arm compliance on the decision, most good practicing Baptists would not go along with the decision and a strong defense of Separation of Church & State would be made. We would actively defend everyone’s right to be a non-conformist.
If the Scriptural justification for making a change was so weak, we would question their interpretation.

Now, these reasons should cause any good Baptist, most Protestants and even many Catholics at least a moment of pause.

In modern times, most believers in Jesus claim to love the Jewish people and typically support the modern state of Israel. We wouldn’t knowingly be anti-Semitic, but often we don’t realize how it has permeated our theology, practice and assumptions. As we stand and practice worship exclusively on Sunday, we are operating in a decision that was mostly motivated by antisemitism and a desire to separate from the Jews.

Secondly, if you consider yourself firmly rooted in the Protestant tradition and hold no allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church—why do you unquestioningly accept this Catholic rule and canon law. Why continue to live and operate with a decision decreed with papal authority but no definitive Scriptural authority?

Thirdly, if you believe in the Separation of Church and State—at least what that used to mean at our nation’s founding—are you at all uncomfortable with the reality that the decree that embedded Sunday as the day of worship was enforced by the government’s power? Are you bothered by the fact that those who still practiced the Sabbath were dealt with harshly or pushed to the edges of the Empire as heretics? The very uniting of Church & State that so many of us fear is exactly how this change became so universal across Christendom.

I would expect my Baptist forebearers to have resisted such a decree in 325 had they been there. I suspect they would be disappointed to know that centuries later, their descendants would not even take up the issue for consideration, but instead, blindly accept it.

We have lost the Berean spirit on this issue.

To that end, I want to revisit some of the Scriptural (particularly New Testament) supports used to justify the change the day of meeting and worship to Sunday.

First, we call Sunday “the Lord’s Day”. But I challenge you to find any verses of Scripture that actually calls it that. We impose that name because we have accepted the position already, not because Scripture clearly makes this declaration.

But what about Revelation 1:9-10—“I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation, kingdom, and endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of God’s word and the testimony about Jesus. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard a loud voice behind me like a trumpet 11 saying, “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.”

For much of my adult life, I have considered this a passage supporting Sunday worship—because it mentions the “Lord’s Day”. However, how do I know the Lord's Day in this passage is referring to a Sunday? The Scripture does not define that, my assumption does. And that's a problem.

Another question is the setting for John's vision. Which Sunday?  Would any Sunday be appropriate for this vision or is it a specific one?

Just reminding again, that the New Testament as we know it would not have existed, not be codified until decades later. So when John thought of the Scriptures, he would be thinking of the Tanakh, what we call the Old Testament made up of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings.

And those Scriptures define for John what is the Lord's Day.

Rather than indicating that John’s vision occurred on a Sunday, this passage is referring to a specific event in prophetic history that the OT Scriptures refers to frequently. It is the same subject that John is writing about. Revelation is all about the return of Yeshua to establish His Kingdom on earth and to judge the nations.

The OT calls that day, the “Day of the LORD”. It is a day of judgment and righteousness, when His authority is established and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ, Yeshua the Messiah, is Lord of all.

John is seeing the time of the end and it is that day that John is taken to by the Spirit. He is no longer on a Sunday in the past, rather the Spirit has taken him to see what is to come—it is that day, the Lord’s day, the Day of the Lord that John sees.

But again, even if this is a Sunday, it is not a command for his followers to forgo the Sabbath and begin meeting on Sunday. At best, that is an interpretation applied to the text, not what the text is saying for itself. It is at best an observation, not a prescription or command.

I remember my hermeneutics class at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary that taught, when we have unclear passages of Scripture, rather than try to speculate or impose an interpretation (eisegesis), it is best to search the Scriptures for other texts that might interpret it for us.

In other words, it is best to let Scripture interpret Scripture.

So if there is no Scripture that clearly calls Sunday the Lord’s Day, and the passage is Revelation is really talking about the Day of the LORD, are there any passages of Scripture that do clearly define the “Lord’s day” in some other way?

I would say yes, there is. In fact, Jesus’ own words define what the Lord’s Day is, but we have ignored the clear passage and not applied it to this issue. The 3 synoptic Gospels all share the statement.

Matthew 12:8—“For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
Mark 2:27-28--" Then He told them, “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. 28 Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
It's also in Luke 6:5 and almost explicit in John 5:1-23

Here we see Jesus clearly defining what He is Lord of. This is not to say He is not Lord on the other days, but His own words declare He is Lord of the Sabbath. By Scripture’s own usage, the Lord’s Day is best defined as the Sabbath.

So by the hermeneutic rule that Scripture best interprets Scripture--the definition of "the Lord's Day" is not referring to Sunday, but rather Saturday, the Sabbath. To insist it really means Sunday is to impose a meaning that the text never makes on its own.

But wait! Wasn’t Jesus raised on Sunday and doesn’t that fact justify moving our day of worship to Sunday?

Again, there is no command, only an observation. Even this truth is not explicit and clear enough to change an explicit command of God.

Yes, Yeshua was raised on the first day of the week (FYI, Jews didn’t call it Sunday, instead they counted the days from the Sabbath), but what made this moment significant, and why this day was chosen as opposed to any other was not that it was a Sunday.

Being a Sunday did not set the date of the Resurrection. God’s calendar of Feast days from Leviticus 23 did.

We know that Jesus is our Passover Lamb who takes away the sins of the world. As Yeshua fulfilled the Passover, He also fulfilled the other spring feasts as well. All of the four Spring Feasts: Passover, Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits and Weeks (Shavuot or what the church calls Pentecost) pointed to and were fulfilled in the first coming of the Messiah.

Today we tend to call them the “Feasts of the Jews”, but that is not what Scripture calls them. Scripture calls them “the Feasts of the LORD”. They are His Feasts.  They are His times of Appointment.  With more authority than any Doctor, God tells His people when He wants to meet with Him.

Leviticus 23:1—“The Lord spoke to Moses: 2 “Speak to the Israelites and tell them: These are My appointed times, the times of the Lord that you will proclaim as sacred assemblies.”

They are appointed times—yearly appointments where the LORD wants to meet with His people and show what He is going to do in the life of the Messiah. They all foreshadow and are prophetic toward the Messiah and what He will do on our behalf.

He is the Passover Lamb, and He is the Spotless (or sinless) lamb in fulfillment of Unleavened Bread—the Matzah that has no leaven (sin) and is pierced and broken during the meal.
Regarding the Resurrection—that happened exactly on one of the Father’s Feast days. Yeshua was raised on the first day of the week, not because it was a Sunday, rather it happened in fulfilment of Firstfruits which takes place the day after the weekly Sabbath of Passover week.

Leviticus 23:11—“He will wave the sheaf before the Lord so that you may be accepted; the priest is to wave it on the day after the Sabbath.”

He was raised as the Firstfruits from among the dead. The first person raised in a permanent, glorified body of the Kingdom.

Paul knew this and expressed it in 1 Corinthians 15:20—“But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.”

The firstfruit of the first harvest of the year is a sign that points to the certainty of the future harvest. It is the expectation and trust that God will provide the full and future harvest and provide all their needs and fulfill His promise.

That is what Yeshua’s resurrection says as Paul goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 15:23—“But each in his own order: Christ, the firstfruits; afterward, at His coming, those who belong to Christ.”

• Sunday was not why this day was chosen for Yeshua’s resurrection. It was chosen because it was Firstfruits.

Therefore, it makes no sense to use the truth of Yeshua being raised on this day as justification for a church practice that changes God’s Word.

Only when we understand God’s Word and the fulfillment of Firstfruits do we understand that this moment was not telling the church to change its day of worship but rather it was showing the faithfulness of the Father to fulfill His promise.

Yeshua’s resurrection on the first day of the week, when properly understood in God’s calendar is not a valid reason to change the command of God, i.e. the Sabbath.

So if Revelation is not a passage clear enough to justify the change to Sunday and neither is the Resurrection, then surely the passages in Acts 20:7 & 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 clearly demonstrate that the early church was meeting regularly on Sunday.

Once again it needs to be pointed out that at best, these verses offer a description of an event and not a command.

Even in this observation, it is not possible to make the claim that this meeting on the first day of the week was an every week event or regular church practice. Typically, they are meeting to take a special offering that Paul can take on to Jerusalem. That is all we can say with certainty. We cannot say they met the week before or the week after because it was a special collection only for when Paul was in town. Once he left to continue his journey, what reason would they have to meet?

That is also assuming the translation “first day of the week” is correct.

There is another possible explanation for this behavior by the believers, one that would provide a reason for them to be already meeting the weeks before and forever after. This is another example of our ignorance of the biblical calendar and God’s commands surrounding the keeping of His Feasts.

We know that Paul regularly met in the synagogues on the Sabbath and many believers participated where they would regularly hear the Torah (see Acts 15:21).
Most English translations say “first day of the week” but that is not the best rendering of the Greek phrase “mia ton sabbaton”.

First, notice that the word Sabbath is a part of this sentence, and while “week” is a possible translation for the plural form, the more straightforward translation is “Sabbaths”. Not just one sabbath, but multiple sabbaths.

I should also note that the word “day” is not in the Greek at all, but merely included for clarity based on the translator’s choice.

Second, “Mia” is not the normal Greek word to say “first”. In most circumstances, the ancient world would use “protos” like in Mark 16:9. “Mia” is most commonly translated as “one” or “one of” (55 times) as opposed to “first” (only 9 times).

So a more straightforward translation would say, “one of the Sabbaths”. But this does not make sense to our minds so we try to adjust our translation. That is reasonable to do, but it may not be correct.  

"One of the Sabbaths" may not make sense to our culture, ignorant of God’s Feast days and the biblical calendar, but what if it did make sense in the Jewish culture? What if it doesn’t make sense to us because we do not know how the Jewish world practiced the biblical calendar and the Feasts.

Knowing the culture matters.  

Most Americans would know what time of year referred to if I said, “the season of giving thanks”.  If I referred to the Playoffs, most Americans could figure out the time of year by knowing what sport I was talking about.  Baseball playoffs are typically in October, but Football playoffs go through January and early February.  If I were to say, “the year the twin towers fell”, most Americans would know I was talking about September 11th, 2001.

Do you know what time of year it is in Acts 20 and 1 Corinthians 16?

The Scriptures tell us.

Acts 20:6—“but we sailed away from Philippi after the days of Unleavened Bread. In five days we reached them at Troas, where we spent seven days.”
From this verse we learn it is shortly after the Feast of Unleavened Bread which is in the spring.

Acts 20:16 lets us know that it is the time between Firstfruits and Pentecost (Shavuot) because Paul was hurrying to make it back to Jerusalem as the Torah commanded. “For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus so he would not have to spend time in Asia, because he was hurrying to be in Jerusalem, if possible, for the day of Pentecost.”

Likewise, 1 Corinthians 16:7-8 confirms the same time of year, “I don’t want to see you now just in passing, for I hope to spend some time with you, if the Lord allows. 8 But I will stay in Ephesus until Pentecost,”

So what? What difference does this make to this issue? Much actually, if you know the biblical calendar and God’s instructions. Jewish people and those familiar with that culture and practice would know exactly what is going on in those weeks with more certainty that Americans would the Playoffs.

In the time between Unleavened Bread and Shavuot, the Israelites are instructed to Count the Omer on 7 consecutive Sabbaths or 49 days, with the culmination being on the 50th day (i.e. Pentecost). This mirrors on a smaller scale the Jubilee year cycle of 50 years.

Leviticus 23:15—“You are to count seven complete weeks starting from the day after the Sabbath, the day you brought the sheaf of the presentation offering. 16 You are to count 50 days until the day after the seventh Sabbath and then present an offering of new grain to the Lord.”

This is the 7 week Counting of the Omer that was practiced in the Jewish culture, but we have lost track of that knowledge in the modern church because we have distanced ourselves from the biblical calendar and the feasts.

Given the specific time of year mentioned in both Acts and 1 Corinthians, the fact they are supposed to be keeping track of the sabbaths, the phrase “one of the Sabbaths” makes perfect sense.  It fits the culture and practice more than “the first day of the week”. Many Jewish people today still Count the Omer between Passover and Shavuot or Pentecost.

That sets the stage for Paul's meeting to collect the offering to occur on one of the 7 Sabbaths between Unleavened Bread and Shavuot (Pentecost). The believers met after Firstfruits and before Pentecost and took a collection for Paul to take to Jerusalem. This was serving as a sort of wave offering from the believers to be presented at the Temple..

Given this better understanding of the phrase describing a Sabbath in the Omer cycle, it is likely that the church was not meeting on a Sunday like we’ve always been taught.
Instead they were meeting on a regular weekly Sabbath during the Counting of the Omer.

If that is the case, then even these verses do not provide the kind of pattern or practice assumed by modern interpreters.  They cannot be used to justify moving the church’s worship from Saturday to Sunday.  Nor do these verses provide scriptural authority for continuing the practice today.

Once again, I need to state that our goal as believers and ministers is to worship God in Spirit and in Truth. The truth is found in the Scriptures where the Father tells His people how to live, what is and is not acceptable worship, and the things that offend Him. He commands us, as His people to stand apart from the nations and not worship like them, but only as He prescribes.

We should heed the warning in the Scriptures which clearly state that there is worship that He hates, even when it is directed toward Him.

In other words, He doesn’t want it.

That is what He warned the Israelites about when they were going into the Promised Land—be careful how the people of God worship Him.

Deuteronomy 12:29—“When the Lord your God annihilates the nations before you, which you are entering to take possession of, and you drive them out and live in their land, 30 be careful not to be ensnared by their ways after they have been destroyed before you. Do not inquire about their gods, asking, ‘How did these nations worship their gods? I’ll also do the same.’ 31 You must not do the same to the Lord your God, because they practice every detestable thing, which the Lord hates, for their gods. They even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. 32 You must be careful to do everything I command you; do not add anything to it or take anything away from it."

We must be careful—because the ways of the nations are enticing and ensnaring, they can be appealing. We must not look to how the nations worship their gods and try to incorporate those practices into how we worship ours. He finds it detestable.

Instead, we must not add or subtract anything from what He tells us to do in His Torah, in His Word.

If He says to do it, we should do it, even if an important person or religious leader says we should stop.

If His Word says don’t do it, we shouldn’t do it, no matter how appealing it may be, or no matter who says we should.

Remember the standard. If anything is going to change and deviate from God’s revealed Word found in the Scriptures—whether we add to or subtract from—the standard must be extremely high and very specific.

It cannot come from the announcement of a church leader centuries after the Apostles. It cannot come by reading  into or inferring, from unclear Scriptures.

Because of these reasons, if I am to make a decision as a Berean and a lover of Scripture more than the pronouncements of the past, then the move by the early church away from the Sabbath and on to Sunday fails to be biblically justified.

And that reality might require a change, not in belief of Yeshua as Messiah, but in practice.

We should not unquestioningly live under a decision made centuries ago just because of tradition.

I’ll be the first one to admit, this was a difficult conclusion to come to. It took a long time for me to get to this understanding and be willing to break from the tradition of my upbringing and denomination.

I also had to consider what it would cost me. It cost a lot.

The church I pastored for over 3 years asked me to step down in part because of my position on the Sabbath. I could talk about it, even preach about it in the context of the 10 Commandments, but as soon as I began to suggest the Sabbath was a particular day, or worse, begin to actually practice the Sabbath, then I had to go.

However, which is more important, keeping a position, satisfying the opinion of people or living and worshiping in Spirit and Truth in the eyes of God. I will gladly choose God, every time.

We must live by the command of the Scriptures to meet together and worship God on the day He assigned and chose for us, to the pattern He set all the way back in Genesis 1 & 2 with the 7th day—the Sabbath.

The Sabbath is the day we are to commanded to remember because it is so easy to listen to all the voices of history trying to get us to forget about it.

May we all begin to walk in His ways—the ways He has clearly instructed us. May we all be Bereans and see if what we teach and practice is consistent with our authority, which is the Word of God.

Someone recently asked me the following question.
In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul says a man should not cover his head when praying or prophesying. In light of that, why is the yarmulke/kippah worn?

1 Corinthians 11:4-5 – “Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered dishonors his head. 5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head. For it is one and the same as having been shaved.”

First let me encourage you to read all of 1 Corinthians 11.

One of the challenges that we face trying to interpret a passage like 1st Corinthians 11 is that we are far removed from the actual cultures involved and the specific circumstances Paul is talking about to warrant this discussion at all. Remember his letters are addressing specific issues written to give the various congregations clarification and Instructions (Torah) of how to conduct themselves as the people of God.

Paul is writing to a dominantly gentile population and congregation. These gentiles came out of very pagan practices and worship when they accepted Yeshua as Messiah, and they came in great numbers.  They would go to a local synagogue to hear the Scriptures and learn more at the instruction of the Jewish evangelist who shared the Good News with them.  But the Jewish population was relatively small and was quickly outnumbered, even in the synagogue.

Synagogues require a minyan—a minimum of 10 Jewish men to be constituted and lead the congregation.  But there may not have been enough of a Jewish population to adequately or authoritatively guide the influx of gentiles who wouldn’t yet know how to live by the Torah.  They may not have enough numbers to model, instruct or enforce Torah and community standards.  Paul's goal was to align the believing community with the Torah and biblical standards of conduct.

Therefore, it makes no sense for Paul to make comments that would themselves contradict or violate the Torah.  Unfortunately, most modern attempts at interpreting this passage don’t know or look to the Torah for context or guidance.  

Most of us come from a background that has no type of head covering for men as a part of worship or life, after all we take our hats off when we pray or enter a building or church.  So we read Paul's comments to reinforce what we are already doing.

However, we cannot take these phrases about head coverings and try to interpret them in light of modern practice, thinking and assumptions.  If we do, we are already distorting the issue he was dealing with and increasing the likelihood that we will incorrectly interpret and apply this passage.

If Paul meant that men are not to have any covering over their head, then Paul is going against the Torah which commands the high priest as well as the Levites and others to wear coverings on their head as they serve in the tabernacle and temple. Other religious orders, like the Pharisees did as well, of which Paul included himself long after his faith in Yeshua (Acts 23:6).
Since Paul, a Torah scholar and keeper even as a believer in Yeshua, would never advocate against the Torah, he must be talking about something else.

The primary issue of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 is gender confusion and the switching of roles. Some pagan beliefs around Corinth and cities like Ephesus said that a woman was created first and a man came forth from her, contradicting Genesis.  Some pagans worshiped female deities where women were elevated as the spiritual leaders and priestesses, contradicting the order set up in the Torah.

To make things more challenging, part of the Greek cultural ritual and practice blended men and women's appearances to where it would often be difficult to distinguish one from the other. The pagan temples did this extensively since sex was a primary activity in their cult. Male & female would wear the same kind of clothes, they would wear the same kind of hairstyles they would wear the same colors. These were efforts to mask features and try to appear as androgynous as possible.

It's no accident that many depictions of Satan show him with both male and female anatomy. In essence, there were elements in pagan culture and faith where men were not celebrated as men and women were not celebrated as women. They tried to make them the same to the point that there was nothing wrong with relations with either. Love is love after all.
There is nothing new under the sun.

It is not unlike the American culture today as clear gender roles are purposely masked and confused. We have many people who are trying to insist on pronouns that do not fit their biological sex and they get offended when people don't use those preferred pronouns.
What we don’t realize is that these are really efforts to impose a religious belief about sex and gender on a biblical culture.  To impose this, these people encourage the use of chest binders for women and girls to look more like men, tucking pants for men and boys to look more like women when they wear bikinis. Dylan Mulvaney and Ru Paul’s drag shows are promoted as the new normal.

The sexual confusion we are seeing today is nothing new.  Paul was fighting in his letter for the synagogues of Corinth to return to a proper Torah order and understanding and practice.
This leads to one of the main reasons why we at Restoration Messianic Fellowship have chosen to restrict the wearing of the tallit to men only. Because our culture is like Corinth and having difficulty distinguishing between men and women. Forces are at work intentionally trying to create confusion and pull congregations away from a Torah framework. I realize that not everybody within Judaism agrees that tallits are only for men. But given the nature of our cultures' confusion, we have chosen to emphasize that the tallit is worn by men during synagogue worship.

Other congregations may choose differently, but I have noticed even in most of those circumstances, they do not want women wearing the same kind of tallit as men. They want them to be obviously feminine in nature, something that a man would not want to wear at all. They do this to maintain gender distinction and minimize potential confusion.

So when Paul is telling men not to cover their head, he is primarily talking about things like hair styles or clothing or anything else that hides the fact that they are a man. That is dishonoring to their head who is Messiah Yeshua and a rejection of Torah. Likewise a woman is not to cover their head with a hairstyle or clothing or anything else that hides the fact that they are a woman. That is dishonoring to either their father or their husband and ultimately Messiah Yeshua.

The idea of hiding and concealing is really what is happening in the Greek.  Please click on the links to see the words on Blue Letter Bible.
 
Notice this word here, typically translated as "covered". Notice it's called a preposition.

First, I would caution anyone making a hard line doctrine over a preposition.

Second, Paul is writing to establish a Torah commandment, one of which is about men not wearing women's clothing and women not wearing men's.

Deuteronomy 22:5 TLV [5] “A man’s apparel is not to be on a woman, nor is a man to wear woman’s clothing—for whoever does these things is detestable to Adonai your God.”

 It is important to pay attention to the various ways this word Kata can be translated. The first option listed is talking about things hanging down from the man's head. Hair can do that, so can various types of coverings like a tallit.  A kippah or yarmulke does not hang down off of his head, so already there is some difference.  But this word Kata is related or found within the next word used with women’s covering in 11:5

The only time this word is used in the New Testament is in this chapter and it is always connected to women.

 This is "uncovered".
"A" means no or without as in agnostic (without knowledge) or atheist (no god). Notice it is translated as uncovered or unveiled.

Notice also the first word Kata is within this word and helps in translating the preposition in this context.

It is a compound word, the second part of which is...

To hide, veil, hinder the knowledge of.
I believe this gets to the heart of what is going on in the whole chapter.  The covering in Corinth worn by men was concealing the fact that they were men.  Or perhaps it was a symbol of submission to the female led order imposed by the pagan system in place.  The lack of covering on women was an effort to look more like men—or to make a statement that the female was closer to the divine, that they were made first.  Thus a rejection of the order established in the Torah.

The actions of both men and women were causing confusion and pushing against the biblical worldview and practice.  Because what the women were doing was concealing or hiding their identity in some way.

That can be confirmed by how this word is used in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Tanakh, the Old Testament completed around 200 years before Yeshua was born.  It is only used once in the context of someone who has leprosy.

 The person with leprosy should do nothing in his or her appearance to hide the fact that they have leprosy.  He cannot pretend, wear conveniently placed items to cover his lesions and sores.  Many times these sores appear on the scalp.  So his hair and scalp must be uncovered and hanging loose.  Instead the person must cover their mouth proclaim or announce that he has leprosy.   There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind.

That is how the Jewish people understood the use of that word, and I believe Paul used it on purpose.  Men should not dress to look like a woman or conceal that they are a man.  Women should not dress to look like a man or conceal that they are a woman.

This is different from an issue that existed in my mother’s day, should women wear pants or only dresses?  There are no contexts in which dresses could pass as men’s clothing.  However, a woman can still look like a woman in pants typically because the cut of those clothes fits the shape of a woman.  They can still be made in such a way that highlights their femininity.  They can be made to look in such a way that no real man would want to wear them.

In terms of head coverings, only until recently in church life, whether Catholic or protestant, women typically wore some kind of veil or head covering, a hat or bonnet. It helped distinguish men from women.  

The misunderstanding or misapplication of this passage is why men have traditionally taken their hats off when entering a building like a church, or when they pray.  Not that doing so is necessarily wrong or violates the Scripture, rather we misunderstand the issue Paul is trying to fix.

Thus, a kippah or yarmulke is not what 1 Corinthians 11:4 is referring to.  A kippah does not hide, conceal or confuse a man's identity.  A Kippah is considered a man's clothing within Judaism and a sign of submission before God, much like the priests and Levites would wear.  It reinforces that God is our head and in authority over us.

However, a Kippah or Yamulke are not required for salvation or fellowship.  Each man must choose for themselves whether they will wear one or not.  Things such as these must be driven by conviction rather than forced by others.