4yrs ago I started seekingthe Lord.I saw women should wear coverings when they pray and prophesy,started wearing to pray&started wearing them all the time makes me feel closer to the Lord and I don’t care what people think may the Lord bless you all❤
* Starting Off on the Right Foot… It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. Therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise. * Where the problem usually begins… If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for not doing so and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered (meaning has short hair) would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair “without” a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there is something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
@FA Thankyou for your attempt to make sense of 1 Corinthians 11. I think that God made Woman beautiful and to tell us we should wad up our hair under a rag doesn't make any sense. Laura's husband is saying that long hair is a sexual thing that needs covered up. This teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 without studying the Bible is a dangerous thing for married ladies who jump into rag wearing. I say dangerous because it could disturb their husbands and cause divorce.
"I don't care what people think...." Nice way to close the conversation. So does being closer to the Lord make one speak like this? Are we to take this like a holy and loving way to deal with people? I have to question this. Within the realm of this misinterpretation one can find that there exists an OBSESSION to speak about this topic incessantly. Evidence of this can easily be found online whose own channels are inundated with videos on head coverings. Going so far as to elevate it as though they were on some “mystical journey” or that there is some kind of “testimony” to share about it with little to no biblical evidence. Let me be clear, there is NO SCRIPTURAL REASONING to ever think that 1st Corinthians 11 propitiates this level of attention or “sacredness” towards coverings. Whether you think the covering is a veil or hair the Bible does not give allowance to obsess or talk about this subject in such an extreme manner. But of course the proponents of wearing veils are typically those who will act somewhat cult-like by basically dedicating themselves to continually refer to head coverings as though this were one of the most important topics of the entire Bible. Such persons often repeatedly state in a very stubborn manner that they don’t care what others think, that they take any negativity as a badge of honor. They often refuse to listen to any biblical soundness because they are already convinced that what they are doing is right. In short they basically close themselves off to any reasonable debate or discussion. Such persons often mention how they FEEL that they are somehow CLOSER to God by SIMPLY WEARING A VEIL, which is akin to those who believe that an inanimate object holds some kind of power like a talisman. Such dedication is similar to Catholics who say the exact same things regarding a scapula, crucifix, rosary or prayer card. For the most part their unwavering attachment to this is based more on EMOTION rather than something biblical.
Here’s all I know. It’s anecdotal but it’s all I have. When I first started reading the Bible for myself, I came across this passage and I’d never heard anyone speak on the subject before. I felt convicted to start wearing some sort of covering on my head. I would wear it basically all day and night because I walked around talking to God all the time and it was just more convenient for me to leave it on. This was my practice for many days and nights and it never came off of my head even while I slept. Well one night after some time Of wearing it without incident I kept waking up out of my sleep because of SEVERE back pain. When id wake up the scarf would be off my head. Id tie it back on. The pain would quickly subside and then I’d drift off to sleep again. It would happen again severe pain in my back. Wake up. Scarf off my head. This went back and forth many times until I finally caught on and just prayed and asked God to make whatever was attacking me in my sleep stop. After I prayed this it stopped. My scarf stayed on my head the rest of the night. I was under heavy demonic attack at the time because I had just given my life back over to the Lord after years in witchcraft, black magic, and new age practices. They weren’t happy with me that I was taking this walk of salvation so seriously. I believe we are supposed to cover our heads as women. Not with hair but with a covering.
One woman had an open vision and she saw if the woman doesn’t cover her head- demons are sitting on top of it! Head have to be covered even at night-you are right, sister!
@@reachhonduras8955they probably took you for a Muslim. Homdurans do not tolerate other religions or the Jewish people acting as if they’re superior to others. Latino Christians are looser in dress than the European Christians. I’m saying this as a Honduran man’s wife and a Latvian living in Miami. You were mistaken for a person of another religion.
This was a good and clear message. But it’s a bit discouraging to come to the comments section and see now many divided opinions and interpretations there are. My desire is to be obedient to God’s word. To spend time in prayer and ask God to lead me to understand these scriptures. Without being led astray by human understanding.
not really like that it can be like that we say that there two kingdoms so what I think is you changing from the culture of the world to culture of God that's what I can say lets share idears
Father thank you for this brother's studies of this issue on headcovering. Forgive me for my ignorance of your Word. Teach us to be submissive to your authority in Christ and obey your Son and ever to be renewed in your Spirit.
@@davidchupp4460 She is glorified by those who see her while she should be glorifying God by covering it. This is biblical am not the one who is saying it.
@@josephkirimi5453 glorified to see her long hair? This has to make sense or otherwise it’s a play on words. Every man knows long hair is glorious on a woman. It’s not glorious if it’s covered. Where in the text does it say it’s a glory to God to cover her head? You are twisting the words to fit your idea. If anything it says it’s dishonoring ME. My wife used to wear one and dishonored me all the time with her actions and words. Now she doesn’t and she’s way more honoring. It’s our actions not a piece of lace that matters to me.
Personally, I began to cover to honor Christ who is my head. I'm a single, never married, woman. Lately it's a modesty issue for me. I wear it alot, because it feels to be more modest.
May God bless you and keep you and may God's face shine upon you and be gracious to you. May the Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace. Thank you for being a light of truth in this dark world, I have been searching and starving for a teaching just like this and I head cover now.
My husband showed me the verses about wearing a head covering when I pray. Well when asked or when I have the opportunity to share why I have my head covered at all times except when it’s being groomed I explain it this way. The Bible says that women are not to pray with their heads uncovered…and it also commands us all to pray unceasingly. So that means that a woman’s head should be covered at all times. Also if you believe that God is alive and want to know what He means in 1 Corinthians 11 (and every other book, chapter and verse of His word) ask HIM. If I wrote a book and you wanted to know what I meant in a particular passage - if you had unfettered access to me - would you go ask someone else what I meant or would you come and ask me? If you would come and ask me…then why aren’t you going and asking God?
Clarisse At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we? “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much. -excerpt Luke 7 Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone... -excerpt John 12
*sigh* First - you don’t need to ask me what God cares about - you should ask that directly to Him. If you have a relationship with Him then I encourage you to do just that. God is alive and has spoken to His people since the beginning of time. Jesus said that His sheep HEAR His VOICE. So if you want to know what He thinks, feels, means…then ask Him directly. If you don’t hear His voice then you should ask the Holy Ghost to reveal to you whether or not you are actually a follower of Christ and a child of God. Second…nowhere in either of those verses does it say that the woman’s head was uncovered. You can have the crown and even the majority of your HEAD covered (for example with a veil) and still have your HAIR flowing down if your hair is long. Not every woman who covers her HEAD wraps up her HAIR in the covering. So I’m sorry but I cannot agree with your examples from scripture because you are making an inference that is not contained in the plain literal reading of the text. I know this is true because I cover my head every day and sometimes my HAIR in totality is ALSO covered but often my HAIR in it’s totality is not. But my HEAD is always covered nonetheless and I use various head coverings to accomplish this purpose. Head coverings include veils, doilies, kippahs, scarves, hats, headbands, turbans, etc. and the list goes on and on. And actually if you watched the first video you will recall that the speaker said that they went to a bed and breakfast and the woman who greeted them had a head covering that he thought was too small. He acknowledged that her head was covered - even if he thought the covering was insufficient for his taste.
@@clarissesaunders7164 If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions for them to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered no one disputes this but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. As I mentioned earlier some will lay claim that they must be referring to a physical head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. Allow me to expand on this if you will because this is very important. If you are going to make the argument to prove your point that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible supposedly claims that women ought to wear a veil based on two conditions, then it is only logical to understand that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one; for example: if the woman is speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should deny this, meaning that the woman should wear their “veil” under other conditions then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. Please note that the belief in women wearing veils for many groups hinges on this “two-condition” argument because if there were actual conditions then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. But keep in mind that it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off. Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promotor would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” So, there seems to be another reason for men not to cover. Therefore if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should he not be covered under any condition because of verse 7? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, we should be asking when they are referring to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV 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 the case, then to be uncovered would mean to have 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 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
* You Should Naturally Know Right from Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is very important so please don’t dismiss it. Be honest with yourself do YOU really believe that the average person will look at an unveiled, praying woman and naturally think a VEIL is missing? Are we to assume that Paul expected the average person to have instilled within them the idea that a foreign object is missing from a woman? I have never seen or heard anyone say something like: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head?” after looking at a long-haired, praying woman. To so do would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. I think can say with some assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a woman with short hair especially if we are looking at their backs to confirm whether the person was male or female. It seems like a natural reaction especially when we were young. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong: whether it be OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (a.k.a. short hair) while praying or OBSERVING a man having long hair. In addition, by using the word “NATURE” one can’t even use the excuse that perhaps they were expecting only Christians to see something different. Clearly, if “nature” teaches us that something looks off then it must be including all of mankind as nature teaches all of us both Christian and non-Christian. I would like to also add that these verses are NOT jumping from the discussion of a “veil” in verse 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in verse 14 like some would like to argue because you will note that verse 15 refers again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” is to mean “long hair.” Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses are referring to hair length. By this, we can understand verse 4 which states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered as I previously mentioned. I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due to the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is exclusive to two conditions instead of seeing them as two examples. As mentioned before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR.
You know…my husband showed me that verse when we first got married…and do you know when I started wearing a head covering? When the Holy Ghost made it clear to me that I have been commanded to do so. I know you wrote a lot of words and I am going to admit that I didn’t read them because I want to be clear about this. I am not following a doctrine of man. I didn’t even start wearing it in obedience to my husband. I do it because GOD told me to. And then I confirmed with HIM that I should. I know that people who do not have a relationship with God cannot understand this…but Yeshua ha-Maschiach SPEAKS to those who are HIS. Ruach HaKodesh always confirms His messages and teachings. You do not have to depend on the teachings of men - nor should you - when you have direct conversations with God. So none of what they taught in the video or what anyone types here changes what GOD has said TO me. And if you don’t think God speaks directly to those who are HIS…then I encourage you to ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Pray. Seek. Knock until He does and until you HEAR HIS VOICE and you FOLLOW HIM.
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
Let this mind be in you as it was in Christ Jesus Christ is the head covering the head of - Leader and the mind of- the born again believer - spiritually
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 Well actually it doesn't say the word "assembling" neither is the word "wear" found at least not in the KJV. It says the woman's head ought to be covered and the man's uncovered and given that much of the passages refer to hair so they are referring to long hair (covered) and short hair (uncovered). As we all know long hair covers the head, which applies in this instance. Much confusion is if there is really ONLY TWO instances being mentioned as opposed to being simply two examples, which is what misleads people to think that if there are conditions it must mean that the covering is something that can be taken off or put on. But hey wer NOT conditions they were JUST two examples. Note that only one (praying) is mentioned in verse 13. Why? because they were meant to be examples. If we say there are only two exclusive moments to supposedly wear something then one should not argue if a woman is "not covered" when talking in tongues, casting out devils, performing any other miracle, etc. Say this to most veil promoters and it is almost guaranteed that people would be against this. The idea behind these scriptures is that if a woman performs a holy act LIKE praying or LIKE prophesying and she is uncovered (meaning she is not covered in long hair) that it would not look right same thing for the man regarding a head covered in long hair (see verses 13 and 14), They were never ever exclusivel refer to a fabric veil, hat or anything else separate from the body.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Good point I have searched many versions and only found one that states assembly but that's after searching many Bibles, therefore, using this word is very questionable and looking at the Greek one will not find the reason to translate it that way. Great logic.
That was very self-righteous Having short or long hair doesn't make you closer to God, there are women who can't grow their hair long or who have thin hair and have to cut it, if your hair is what makes you feel good about yourself you need some self reflection
@@liliesofthefield5310 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️of course there’s always gotta be that one who twists and adds to what was said. How about you do some self reflection yourself
This is the best teaching on this subject I have ever heard. Very clear and concise. Using the Greek words makes it unrefutable. I'm a Christian woman in the States that has off and on covered both in church and at home. This makes sense to me to cover. My favorite part was where it translated as beautiful shawl.gives such a glorious mental picture. Thank you for your work on this subject.
@@DavidKing-qd3sp The Greek word used for covering in 1 Corinthians 11 verses 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, is the word, katakalýptō, from katá, "down, and kalýptō, "to cover," cover down, to make appropriate, i.e. to wear a veil. It is the same word used for the veil that separated the Holy of Holies from the priests. Only in verse 15, where Paul is giving an example from nature is a different word used. "But if a woman has long hair, it is her glory. For her hair is given to her for a covering." Here the word for "cover" is "peribolaion," that which is tossed around or a mantel that can be thrown around the shoulders and body (As in when a woman tosses or throws her hair around). Thus, Paul speaks about two coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. One is long hair and the other is a veil.
@@KaitlinLuksa ....head coverings were a cultural thing but if you want to wear one thats up to oyu but it is not a salvation point...all the best to you but do read 2nd peter 3.16
@@KaitlinLuksa ................Kaitlan, there are bigger salvation point issues beyond head coverings , for example do you keep the 7th day Sabbath as the bible teaches or do oyu keep Sunday the first day of the week...read Ex. 20.8-11 and Ev. 23.32...sabbath is from friday evening to saturday evening...did you also know that 99% of christians are wrong on Hell, hell-fire is a fire that annihilates the wicked and then the fire goes out for God is love and love does not torture for eternity unless God's first name is Adolph...read the book the fire that consumes by william edward fudge
@@DavidKing-qd3sp I prefer to get my doctrine from the Bible. We can at least agree that head covering is not a salvation issue. However it is incorrect to say head covering is merely cultural. It is no less a Christian tradition that should be upheld than baptism and the Lord's Table.
I like what you are teaching pastor. Many denominations don't teach this and so they just believe God is on there side while he says even their prayers are just noise in his ears because of disobedience. I think you can join the church of God which is the only true church.
I’ve noted that many people who leave comments on RUclips videos on this topic repeatedly speak about how God or the Holy Ghost “convicted” them of wearing a veil. It’s never usually about how this or that verse convinced them, but rather some kind of spiritual or religious experience brought them to believe that they ought to wear a veil. This line of thinking can be very dangerous because if the experience does not line up with the Scriptures, then the alternative is an experience one is creating in their own mind or at worst something demonic in nature. Such persons often mention how they FEEL that they are somehow CLOSER to God by SIMPLY WEARING A VEIL, which is akin to those who believe that an inanimate object holds some kind of power like a talisman. Such dedication is like unto Catholics who say the exact same things regarding a scapula, crucifix, rosary, or prayer card. For the most part, their unwavering attachment to this is based more on EMOTION rather than something biblical. There are some who believe that they have to wear something 24/7 to avoid bad dreams, or pain or anything else negative. Such a person is creating their own dogmas and do not even realize it. Many Christian women do not wear it and do not have these symptoms but if one is obsessed with it they can create their own problems as they allow their minds to believe it. Can you imagine that instead of focusing on the gospel they put more effort and concentration on something written briefly in one chapter of the whole Bible and on top of that misinterpreting it? The evidence is in the videos they make over and over on this ONE subject. This is a form of IDOLATRY. What’s even worse are those who claim that God TOLD them or LED them to put a hat, cap, or veil on their heads. If this is you, then I implore you to reconsider by reading the scriptures. It’s never too late to get it right.
hello!! i’m so curious why you are so against head coverings? the difference between the catholic practices and women who head cover is that it’s rooted in the scripture of 1 corinthians. as far as i know, the women i know that veil read the passage and were CONVINCED by THE WORD to veil. who is our teacher? The Holy Spirit!!
@@irelda Hi. I think wearing a head covering is fine so I am not against that. It is when it crosses the doctrinal line. There really isn't any doctrine about covering a woman's head with a veil or a hat in 1st Corinthians 11. The women I know who read that passage especially if they are not reading the modern corrupt version will not see the idea of veiling. If you read the KJV you will find that it says that the woman's head ought to be covered but the word covered is not exactly a noun. But when we read the rest of the verses we get to read the word hair written 3x and shorn and shaven 4 times. But not the words, cloth or veil. Paul was simply saying women ought to cover their heads with long hair and men should not cover their heads with long hair (aka uncovered). Unfortunately many have misinterpreted Paul's teaching to think it is regarding a physical and separate object. Just like many believers and alleged believers believed in purgatory or infant baptism or the popery etc. So, people can be wrong for a long time and this belief is no different. That is why we should be convicted by the Scripture which teaches us the truth and discern whether what certain groups think is or isn't scriptural.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter interesting!! but how do you reconcile the church history of women covering their heads as a symbol of submission? no matter the denomination, all women did cover their heads at one point in accordance to 1 corinthians 11. it’s only recently that the interpretation of that passage has changed. that’s one of the things that helped me understand the passage in its context.
@@irelda Ok so let’s follow through with your premise. So the idea that the fact that women wore a veil or hat throughout history should apparently be considered as evidence. Now I can agree that some women wore head coverings in certain parts of the world. Now I don’t think I would accept your assertion that women covered their heads as a symbol of submission, that would be just too hard to prove. I doubt you would be able to provide enough evidence that every woman wore it because of this. So let’s stick with things we can form a logical conclusion. Therefore, in regard to church history and your premise that if enough churches practiced head coverings for a long enough time then one should take into consideration that this doctrine must be true. If this is the basis of our belief, then there is no reason to dismiss other doctrines that fall into this premise of yours. According to this logic the fact that many churches practiced and followed infant baptism or purgatory or Popes or Mary and Saints worship or adoration, etc. is enough to prove their worthiness and acceptance. The RC church alone would easily favor this idea because they have over a thousand years of existence with millions of people believing in all sorts of doctrines. So this logic really doesn’t make sense now does it? This logic is even easily discarded biblically. Recall when Stephen spoke about temple building minutes before he was stoned. He described in detail how temple building was not God’s idea though God allowed it to occur. So from the time of Solomon until Stephen’s preaching which were many years with perhaps millions of people (God’s people) believing that it was a good idea to build a temple. But from the way Stephen describes God’s reaction it would clearly seem he was not pleased (Acts 7:47-52). So according to the bible is it possible that God’s people can get things wrong for a long time? Apparently so. Is it not written My people are destroyed due to lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6)? The facts are that this was just another misinterpreted doctrine like so many others that despite the fact it was practiced does not make it biblical truth. You cannot use the fact that a small amount of Catholic people rebelled against head coverings which apparently started in an idolatrous RC church as a way to rebel against a false priest in a small place in Michigan in the US seems highly unlikely it would suddenly turn the entire planet against head coverings. That just seems like a huge stretch for anyone to believe. As true Christians we are to use Scripture to determine what is right or wrong not because of the actions of false Christians who believe in works for salvation plus a ton of false doctrines. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Tim 3:16) So what needs to be reconciled really is whether you stand on the scriptures or the actions and practices of others?
@@irelda Ok so let’s follow through with your premise. So the idea that the fact that women wore a veil or hat throughout history should apparently be considered as evidence. Now I can agree that some women wore head coverings in certain parts of the world. Now I don’t think I would accept your assertion that women covered their heads as a symbol of submission, that would be just too hard to prove. I doubt you would be able to provide enough evidence that every woman wore it because of this. So let’s stick with things we can form a logical conclusion. Therefore, in regard to church history and your premise that if enough churches practiced head coverings for a long enough time then one should take into consideration that this doctrine must be true. If this is the basis of our belief, then there is no reason to dismiss other doctrines that fall into this premise. According to this logic the fact that many churches practiced and followed infant baptism or purgatory or Popes or Mary and Saints worship or adoration, etc. is enough to prove their acceptance. The RC church alone would easily favor this idea because they have over a thousand years of existence with millions of people believing in all sorts of doctrines. So this logic really doesn’t make sense now does it? This logic is even discarded biblically. Recall when Stephen spoke about temple building minutes before he was stoned. He described in detail how temple building was not God’s idea though God allowed it to occur. So from the time of Solomon until Stephen’s preaching which were many years with perhaps millions of people (God’s people) believing that it was a good idea to build a temple. But from the way Stephen describes God’s reaction it would clearly seem he was not pleased (Acts 7:47-52). So according to the bible is it possible that God’s people can get things wrong for a long time? Apparently so. Is it not written My people are destroyed due to lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6)? The facts are that this was just another misinterpreted doctrine like so many others that despite the fact it was practiced does not make it biblical truth. You cannot use the fact that a small amount of RC people rebelled against head coverings which apparently started in an idolatrous church as a way to rebel against the preacher who was say women ought to wear a hat in order to receive communion. This occurred in a small place in Michigan which seems highly unlikely that it would suddenly turn the entire planet against head coverings. That just seems like a huge stretch for anyone to believe. As true Christians we are to use Scripture to determine what is right or wrong not because of the actions of false Christians who believe in works for salvation plus a ton of false doctrines. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Tim 3:16) So what needs to be reconciled really is whether you stand on the scriptures or the actions and practices of others?
Right - Holiness is the underlying, foundational requirement & -topic of God the Father's whole nature - Hair as a covering for women has the following meaning (for her face at times as she wants or chooses to cover her face, or her shoulders, or her chest as-&-when she wants - it is just the nature of a woman to use her hair in that way when she has long hair; it is designed by God like that FOR the women's comfort/security/exclusivity) Covering when prophesying or praying is a cloth/fabric/hat as a woman chooses (as trained, submissive warrior by the Holy Spirit) or in obedience to the Holy Spirit, per occasion. It is submitted that women who are sensitive to the Heavenly Friend and Comforter, the Holy Spirit, will not find it easy to pray or prophesy without a head covering(because the Holy Spirit wants to steer His female and male friends clear from dishonour), but if her conscience is trained/hardened to be self-willed and not be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit regarding the small things like attire, dress code, and the like, she will embrace dishonour blindly regarding the small things...incurring inevitable/eventual dishonour on her HEAD, which is her husband/man. Such dishonoured husband/man will also be inclined towards dishonouring Christ and believe, "well, it is life - let's work through it". If someone says, "...,but I'm unmarried..." Well 1 Cor 11:11 makes it clear that once one is really in Christ, then such man is not without woman or such woman is not without man. Clearly not easy-thinking-matter for the intellect. Clearly solid spirit-food. Dishonour is bad in its core, but that though, does not leave God without solution, because 1Cor15:43 shows that God clearly has a solution for something which has been sowed in dishonour. The main topic of the head covering nudges towards this - honour vs dishonour. Quite amazing to hear very learned people always asking:"what is dishonour?" when prompted with the topic. Honour and dishonour is not easily understood by humans, since all honour belongs to God the Father. Once the human engages into pursuing honour in the intellect's way, such human always fails and ends up in dishonour. To avoid the one and embrace the other is not easy to understand for the intellect, or free will, but meant for the obedient born again spirit which is trained how to subdue the flesh and soul into obedience of the Holy Spirit's desires, on-the-go. The Holy Spirit understands the weight and nature of honour and dishonour, therefore he is the only one that can guide safely on those narrow ledges at His Holy Mountain. It is noteworthy to mention that the devil's head is crushed easily by a woman who utilises the tool (head covering) in obedience to the Holy Spirit's prompting, at any given time. Shalom.
Furthermore it can be advised to women - explore the Father's response to your actions by utilising the head covering only in the inner room/private time of prayer, therefore in secret. You will stand amazed!...if you do not become aware of it, pray that God will restore your sensitivity to the Holy Spirit again to the levels He desires it to be.
@@johannventer9759 I disagree with the assessment that the woman is to cover her hair in obedience to "the Holy Spirit" primarily and believe this is just a modernist approach to the ethical dilemma the bible presents us with: that Eve was made for Adam. the OT meekness of Angels and Beasts: We see a pattern of "the lesser blessed by the greater" and "he who [wishes] to be great, must serve the others": in particular in the passages regarding the meekness of the "Donkey" and the Angel - towards the undeserving Balaam. In the same way even Abigail was pressed to give supplies to David behind Nabals back: not daring to openly rebell against his authority; but like Gideon with his own works did so in "the cover of the night".: and this is the common plea of the woman: even if she is wiser - the authority that man has over her comes from God and is not to be overruled lest it is for the sake of the house - or for a time of fervent prayer. Women in the Epistles and the body of Christ: For any accurate reader then it becomes obvious that Paul in his letter to Timothy is openly biased against Women in regards to leadership: >for Man did not Sin; but the Woman did< while also remarking that >Women will be blessed/saved< by childbearing.: where the woman does have authority over males because she is most exalted [as is mary] in her lifegiving qualities: In the case of her raising children the woman towers over the man: for which the man ought to be the head of her like Christ did: laying down his life for her - but also having authority over her body - as Timothy clearly gives the partner- the husband or the wife: in either case - full ownership over the spouses body. The meaning of "power on their head": Connected with this passage: "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, because of the angels." the Verse Ezekiel 10:1-22 elaborates on what this exactly means: that Angels as servants carry the throne of God on their "head" So this literally is >THE power of God: his throne< on their heads. This means the woman is like Angels: beautiful, glorious, and a valuable servant: She ought to be "like unto an angel" and "profitable for the whole congregation": she is to cover her head in rememberance of those: ...who are not prideful and cover their glory with their wings: and have the power on their head ...who must stay their power/beauty even in the face of the undeserving (the Angels mentioned in the verse above are not those mentioned in Genesis 6:1) The Woman then; being equipped with greater power: to give life, must be put into subjection; she must submit to her spouse and her body is his;(his body is also hers;) and she is to do this for the sake of the house and her honour: So primarily and before all other things: she is to be profitable in the upbringing of children therefore "covering her head" to "be like the angels" who are comforters. It is that simple.: Eve, by God: was made for Adam: not for her own good: but as his glory.
@@a-sheepof-christ9027 .... thy many words are self-refuting. If thou require specific evidence, kindly use the following spirit-level as vetting tool - "Time-Will-Tell" - Shalom.
@@a-sheepof-christ9027 @a-Sheep of-Christ Thy dissertation is self-refuting. If thou require specific evidence, use the following spirit-level as vetting tool - Time-Will-Tell Shalom
It is not about what you wear rather it is staying connected to the Spirit of God. There is a balance everyone travels. I look better with a little color on my hair and face. I wear clothes that are modest and do not stand out. I blend in with the congregation. My focus is my relationship with God. If you believe that God is asking you to cover your head, then do it. We must obey the Spirit. ♥️
It is about what one wears So called christians dress like the world incl their tattoos- piercings and the like Jesus had disciples who were being discipled Make no mistake God has but one pattern for the Church- New Testament And One the sample of the Leader of the Church- Jesus Christ
-example- this iPhone changes my words like man changes the word of God- automatically and requires to be corrected Holy Spirit brings Unity of the Faith- Only He is the Gatekeeper to the Kingdom of God Jesus Christ is the Door Holy Spirit ushers the person over the threshold for He alone is the Witness to it the seed of God as He was for Jesus Christ the Only Begotten Son of God - who was God- immaculate conception - by Holy Spirit So too every Son and Daughter since Jesus sent Holy Spirit to continue the mission- building a spiritual Tabernacle- Temple Tent of Meeting to dwell on n- the born again believer
@@mandycote5662 Again, if the Spirit of God compels you to dress a certain way, then obey. I am 70 yrs old and have traveled down the narrow path since I came to earth. I am modest because the Spirit of Mary is modest and that is our guide as females. The Spirit of God does the work from the inside out. I attended catholic school for 12 years and wore uniforms with button up blouses. We all dressed alike so that we were taught modesty together. Be careful of extremes in either direction. Follow what Jesus said "if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out". Do what you need to do to not sin....♥️
@@tcmenez3648 Perhaps the Holy Spirit sent me to remind me and to share wisdom with you. Thank you for reminding me of modesty. I will bother you no more ♥️
If the covering is a woman's hair, why tell her to wear it during prayer and prophesying? Her hair is already on her head. Does that also mean the man should remove his hair while praying? 😆 that would be quite a sight.
Basically God gave hair to women as a covering but when Jesus came with salvation he taught that anyone who'd like to follow him should not beautify herself and so gave a command that women should cover their heads and this is actually one area they use to glorify themselves.
I studied this 1 Corinthian 11 passage. My conclusion so far is that it is a covering of fabric as well. I love Gods order and it is displayed throughout Scripture. He instructs in the old testament that women should not wear clothes of men ( and vis versa) I have been told by church leadership that head covering is not our culture. Hmmm, I thought " but isn't that 'tradition' and we are told to not follow men, traditions of, and follow Christ
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
Baptism, communion, foot washing… these, too, are traditions… yet we still still practice them. We can’t pick snd choose which traditions we practice and which we don’t… that’s a point I would respectfully bring up to church leadership. 😊🙏🏽
The pastors are afraid of the feminists movement/Jezebel culture. Many pastors are afraid of their women covering outside the church because they are afraid of the culture. I would say to also read/study Numbers 5:18 about headcovering being removed during judgment. Also Isaiah 47:2 in context, and psalm 140:7.
If women are to be totally silent in church, how in the world can they praise, or sing, or even fellowship? There is nowhere in the Bible that it says a woman cannot pray or prophecy in church. Sometimes we have to rightly divide the Word and dig deeper.
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 1 Cor 14:34
What version of the Bible do you all use, that doesn't have the misleading subtitles? I would love to buy one. Mine, the NLT, also had the instructions for public worship subtitle.
Exodus 15:20 And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances. I don't know if anyone else answered this. But that is an example as an answer to his question regarding his search for an old testament prophetess
The Ancient Church had an Apostolic Custom or Tradition such that women veiled their head and men kept their head open during public worship (1Cor 11:16). This was based on the protocol of covering symbols of human glory while uncovering symbols of divine glory during corporate worship because of the angels. Culturally, we know that Jews and Romans worshipped with head covering for both men and women, while Greeks worshipped without head covering for both men and women. So, this was neither Jewish nor Roman, nor even Greek culture. Rather it was peculiar apostolic custom in the Church (1Cor 11:2,16) meant to conceal human glory and exhibit Divine Glory for authority and dignity before the Angels during Church’s messianic worship gatherings. It has nothing to do with submission to husbands or submission to slave masters or distinction between adults and minors or any other conjectures that are not found in the text and do not fit the context of this passage of Scripture. God has set signs and symbols for this messianic Church order and apostolic Church LITURGICAL custom in view of presence of angelic host during corporate worship: The man and the woman are the IMAGE of God (Gen. 1:27), But the Man’s head symbolizes God’s GLORY (i.e. Christ 1Cor 11:3, 7), Whereas the Woman’s head symbolizes Man’s GLORY (1Cor 11:3, 7), The Woman’s long hair symbolizes Woman’s GLORY (1Cor 11:15). Apostolic corporate worship protocol, because of Angels in attendance, is to cover symbols of human glory but uncover symbols of divine glory.
Many people in this chat are making this way too confusing. I have never worn a head covering but have only dived deeper into my relationship with God over the past 5 years. I am seeking answers, not confusion, legalism, and spirit of religion. We are under new covenant because of Christ. Don't make this harder than it is. Based on scripture alone fabric headcovering is the way to go. One cannot put on and take off hair for prayer so it's the only thing that makes sense.
How do you know that Philip‘s daughters didn’t prophesy in the assembly? Just because he mentioned they went to their house and that the daughter‘s prophesy doesn’t mean that he didn’t hear that they prophesied in the assembly.
Acts 21:8-9 never says where Phillip's daughters prophesied. The text does not indicate that they prophesied in the home or that they only prophesied in the home.
I'm struggling with knowing if I should cover just at corporate worship on Sundays or all the time. But not showering or sleeping. From when I wake up to bedtime prayer at night. I'm not trying to over complicate it or be legalistic. Me thinking to only cover for Sunday worship feels like I might be trying to justify not wearing it other times. But I'm looking for biblical backing to this. Husband's account *
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.) ...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes, scriptures outside of Corinthians mostly Essay by another: post length 7 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary.
There are a couple of things that you might want to establish as certainty before going all into something that might be based on something very loosely or with very little scriptural evidence. 1. First, one must find out if what the bible means by covering is only performed within a certain place or time frame today or if it should occur everywhere and all the time. Meaning does it say it should be done while in church? Because if it really doesn't then when we can put that aside. 2, Second, how sure can we be that the covering is a separate object instead of hair? This question must be asked given that hair can cover the head and is written several times along with the words shorn and shaven (KJV), which relate to hair. In other words, are we taking into account the context of the passage or over-focusing on a couple of words? 3. Third, is the doctrine timeless or meant to taken as a moment reserved for the culture of the time? This must also be established as the passage refers to the order of creation therefore it would be difficult to say it was only meant to be performed within Corinth at that time. 4. Fourth, if covering meant a hat or veil why would Paul ask us to judge if it would look right that woman pray without it, in 1st Cor. 11:13, similar to looking at a man with long hair naturally looks wrong in verse 14. Did Paul think that the average person looking upon a woman without a veil would innately think that something was missing on her head? Or are we misunderstanding the word covering, when he could be meaning that a woman ought to cover her head with long hair which would match up with verse 15? Several things are up for debate but there must be some logic in the passage for us to at least lean towards what it is really trying to say.
I hope you still will get your answer and I am here to read it with you. I pray for protection against the one that wants to kill steal and destroy. Stand strong sister ❤ seek Him and He will answer. I will seek Him with you about this!
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
33:00 You admit that Pual calls the covering of the woman a περιβόλαιον, but forget the fact that Paul defines the hair TO BE the περιβόλαιον. In other words, it is not LONG hair that is the περιβόλαιον, but the natural uncut hair that is given to the woman. I would like you to reconcile the idea of glory. Paul uses the idea of glory in reference to God, Man, and the Woman. Paul makes it clear that the hair of a woman's head is HER glory.
Olive Tree Ministries The best way is to check the early church fathers how they understood the Greek. They lived much closer than us. I'd recommend Tertullian from 200AD. His writing Veiling the Virgins may help you. You may also start your study here: headcoverings.org/book-chapters/chapter04-what-early-christians-believed-about-the-head-covering/
@Sa. Hayes I saw someone say yes, the women need no covering because her hair comes down fow and cover her that is enough no cloth needed. Wonder if they know ours in Africa don't flow down in their natural form.
@Sa. Hayes hmk, I don't mean it apply when u hve long hair. I mean to indicate that it is not about the length of hair. Whether there is long hair or not. Now, those who defend the hair is a covering say, the hair is enough as it flows down and cover. Now I mean our hair don't flow down. I am for cevering, I cover my head, incase my explanation above isnt clear.
@Sa. Hayes I do cover daily, there is something you have by that, can't explain, protection, cover can't put it in word. when you start to obey, God will lead you on. It is not easy at the beggining. But obey and God will open the doors for understanding. Think about Abraham, that is what came to mind when I type this to you. He had to take his only son for a sacrifice, I don't blv he understood everything, but he did because, he believed and feared God enough to obey the hard command. It is a sacrifice. In a society of today, covering is not easy, you seen as if someone lacking in thoughts, but it is well. All I encourage you to do is START, if you have the conviction.
If the woman's "long hair" is given as a covering (beautiful-cloth?) (to cover wholly, a mantle, veil), is this some indecation that this covers her head and neck? And if there is to be a cloth over this, is it needing to cover all her long-hair-glory (a mantle, veil), or just to be a visitable addition? Is verses 9 and 10 "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head", just saying that she needs to be under her husband's authority. This headship was first declared in Gen. 3.16 ..."and he shall rule over thee", after Eve was deceived by the serpent/Satan/fallen-angel.
I wear a head covering all the time. It is my opinion at least, that a head covering is used to cover the hair, hence if one was to wear it, it should cover the whole head/hair. Otherwise, what would be the point of wearing a head covering, if almost all the hair is showing anyway. Each to their own though. Not all of us are convicted to wear the head covering anyway.
@@torahwifeministries ............ 1 Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If she has no covering while assembling, or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut his off each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
That's not quite what a tautology is either. The dictionary says it's "An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false..." But both the pastor and you give additional insight in how to recognize an tautology. For example, the phrase "Survival of the fittest," is such a statement because it says nothing of consequence; clearly those who are fit are most likely to survive and those who survive are likely the most fit.
Why can't you make sense of verse 6 if you were looking at the Covering of her head to be her hair? And that it only makes sense if you look at Covered to be a piece of material? Why does Paul then say to Totally Cut Off the Hair if you don't Cover your head? Why is he bringing attention to the hair? It makes total sense to look at this the way it was intended and that is, If the woman is going to have Short hair like a man, uncovered, then the woman mine as well Cut it all off, like a sheep or to the bare skin. If this is Shameful for you (the woman) then Keep your Hair Long and not like a Mans. Paul goes on to explain the reasoning why by explaining the order of creation of the man and woman. Again, this makes perfect sense
In first Corinthians 14:28 the tongues speaker is to be silent if there is not an interpreter. Obviously that’s a limited silence because in verse 26 we are told that when we come together we can have a psalm, a teaching, a tongue, a revelation, and interpretation. The tongues speaker may not be able to speak in tongues if there is no interpreter but he still can speak. So verse 28 is only speaking about a limited silence. Likewise could not the women being told to be silent in first Corinthians 14:34 be a limited silence? Can she not still pray and prophesy in church and bring forth a tongue, and interpretation, a revelation and even a teaching. So long as she is not usurping authority over a man or being disruptive and asking questions in the assembly.
We would believe that the Bible is not in opposition to itself. If you could give a little more clarity as to what you are talking about, we can more specifically address your question.
This is an opinion that I hold, head coverings and telling people what they can and can't wear is legalism, people get so caught up with this that they form guilt and worry if they are not adhering to the rules and really what does it ultimately have to do with freedom in Jesus?
The problem is deeper in that many have accepted the teachings of ancient doctrines instead of letting the Word of God teach for itself. The covering is the long hair as so noted in 1st Cor. 11:15. But some avoid this verse and find ways to confuse the masses by saying one ought to read the Greek as though God in his wisdom mistakenly allowed the wrong word to be used in the English translation.
Fortunately, only a few sects adhere to this legalism. People will follow dreams, so-called church history, the anger they have towards the feminist movement (which is bad) instead of the simplicity of the Bible. The covering the Bible refers to is hair, specifically long hair that women ought to have. Instead, they have allowed this blindness to create a whole new doctrine that the Bible does not mention, with additional rules that cannot be substantiated as to when to wear it, how to wear it, there are some that even give actual dimensions, the color, etc. None of which is in the Scriptures.
If the first part of Corinthians is in the context of everyday life, as opposed to church meetings, wouldn't that mean men should never cover their heads? Even work uniforms?
@@thekingdomchristians9910 yes, while praying and prophesying. It however does not suggest that if a man wears a head, he commits a horrible sin. We need to be careful. This Anabaptist movement has its confusion. Christians are not supposed to be just meek and accepting. The Old and New Testament do not contradict. Read closer in the OT, and you will see that even there divorce was condemned. And while I would suggest not to join the militairy, patriotism is of God. Paul also said we need to obey the laws of the government that AGREE with God's law - Romans 13. "Christian anarchism" - which people like Bercot and Boyd actually affirm - is heretical. Even though I agree with them on religious doctrines such as the nature of man.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That they are wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. If there where only two exclusive moments then one should have no problem if an “unveiled” woman speaks in tongues, interprets tongues, heals the sick, casts out devils, etc., right? Following such logic it stands to reason that the other instances that I mentioned should be acceptable WITHOUT a veil, right? Now should they say NO, then they should admit that there may be more instances; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, to be false. Please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that EXPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. People ASSUME this because they are misreading scripture. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in long hair. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real life scenario. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Did people really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? I am not saying this to be funny, but people have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved. Given that this comparison seems illogical one should consider that someone may be reading it wrong. For if “uncovered” means “short hair” then it fits the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair) then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved, since it is already short. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven than to being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman is somehow equal to being shaved. Please don’t dismiss this logic think about it for a minute. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women as well as headship. Bit as far as the physical head is concerned the question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say all of the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation. If we are to make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them without having to start studying Greek. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up into the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying? Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Someone needs to explain this logically. Again, don’t dismiss this think about it. Be honest, does looking at a woman doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying, that would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong by OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (aka short hair) while praying and a man having long hair. I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head “COVERED” in this verse refers to “LONG HAIR.” I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is being exclusive to two actions instead of seeing them as two examples. As stated before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off, ESPECIALLY in this verse, as it offers no examples or “supposed” exclusive conditions. In this instance it is to be understood that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. Keep in mind that short hair is NOT the same as being shaved. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. Unfortunately, people tend to get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seem like some kind of headwear but do not consider all the verses that show that “covering” means long hair and that “uncovered” is to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Yes! Don't do it! You disrespect and dishonour your head, which is Christ! "I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head". 1 Cor 11:3-4 (ASV)
If we are told to pray, " unceasingly" I believe that the " prayer " being spoken of here, is public and in the context of a group meeting. Please wear your helmet and pray constantly. 🙏
@@godsgrace7774 How can that even be possible? God told the priests and the high priest to have a turban in their heads when serving in the Temple. Were they dishonouring God by doing so? And if someone is riding a motocicle and an accident is about to happen, can't they say a prayer for God to help?
The issue at Corinth was not whether long or short hair was an acceptable covering, but whether or not the head was covered with a veil or hat. This is proven by the following: ----"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head" (v. 4). The distinction here is obviously not between short and long-haired brethren, but rather between men with covered and uncovered heads. Contentious sisters were provided with an alter native: either cover the head or be shorn or shaven ( v. 6). But if long hair were the intended covering, then the Apostle's alternative is meaningless. "Cover" ( -ed, -ing) in the A.V. disguises the fact that different words for "to cover" are used in the Greek text. The distinction between two of these, "katakalupto" and "peribolaion" proves that a veil or head covering, and not long hair is intended. These words are as follows: "Katakalupto" ( 'kata' = 'fully'; 'kalupto' = 'to cover up'), "to cover fully" ( Yg). This word occurs through out verses 5- 13 and is translated "veil" in the R.S.V.; Nestle and Marshall's "Interlinear Greek-English New Testament'' and many other versions. These translations make it plain that the issue relates to a head covering, not the growth of hair, long or short. "Peribolaion" ('peri' = 'around'; 'ballo' = 'to throw, cast'), "something cast around" ( Y g). The long hair of a woman is her glory - like a mantle cast around ( v. 15) .(8) But this is not to be displayed in the assembly of believers before the presence of God. The intended covering in the ecclesial meeting is the "katakalupto" ---- the head covering or veil. When Paul refers to the long hair given to the woman as her glory, he is drawing a parallel with what "nature" or common-sense suggests. This can be seen from the following: MAN long hair is degrading. WOMAN long hair is her glory. Therefore. a parallel is evident [natural] with the spiritual a man ought not to cover his head a woman ought to cover her head. 4. The mistaken interpretation (9) evident in the question results from reading verse 15 as if it were the conclusion of the argument rather than an additional appeal to common-sense by a parallel: what "nature itself teaches.".
@@nattybumppo4151 That always comes to my mind when I read 1 Corinthians 11. It is so strange that Paul would say such a thing knowing what God commanded to the priests. I always wonder if this was wrongly translated or even corrupted by man in the translation. Unless Paul is talking about men using a feminine veil it doesn't make sense. In Jewish culture men always covered their heads with a tallit when praying.
New International Version What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up why does one never see this....
Exactly! that is why I prefer home fellowship or small groups that I have attended where this passage is applied. Everyone has something to bring to the fellowship instead of being just a spectator. We the body of believer are the church.
"The majority of Biblical scholars have held that "verses 4-7 refer to a literal veil or covering of cloth" for "praying and prophesying" and verse 15 to refer to long hair of a woman for modesty.[4] Although the head covering was practiced by most Christian women until the latter part of the 20th century,[5] it is now a minority practice among contemporary Christians in the West, though it continues to be the normal practice in other parts of the world, such as Romania, Russia, Ukraine, Ethiopia, India, Pakistan, and South Korea" Read yourself rich folks at @t
@Jesus Is Lord Quite correct! "6 For if a woman will not wear [a head] covering, then she should cut off her hair too; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her head shorn or shaven, let her cover [her head]. 7 For a man ought not to wear anything on his head [in church], for he is the image and [reflected] glory of God [ his function of government reflects the majesty of the divine Rule]; but woman is [the expression of] man's glory (majesty, preeminence). 8 For man was not [created] from woman, but woman from man; 9 Neither was man created on account of or for the benefit of woman, but woman on account of and for the benefit of man. 10 Therefore she should [be subject to his authority and should] have a covering on her head [as a token, a symbol, of her submission to authority, that she may show reverence as do] the angels [and not displease them]." 1 Corinthians 11:6-10 (AMPLIFIED BIBLE)
If women are to wear a covering when praying or prophesying, what about other times not praying?? For if it were the hair given as a covering then why state the setting of praying and prophesying? Given for her glory, not everyone elses! Look at how the world gets excited and how its set in a sensual tone. Commercials of hair shampoo, etc. Women should put on a fabric covering!
@@autumngrace3135 Their choice if they are not praying. Yes! they should wear a covering or have their head shaved. Those who refuse are rebels and so become "Silly women laden with sin". Along with those shamed women who refuse to obey the Lord's commandment for their silence in the church assemblies.
Thank you for these videos! How much of a woman's hair should be covered,? There is so much controversy over this.; as much as whether to cover at all or not.
Also, my argument in favor of a head covering for women is, if it's just her hair, then short hair covers as much of her actual head as long hair does.The rest just hangs down her back, and nowhere does it say to wear a covering over your back, besides your clothing. Christian women are exhorted not to have short hair, so this leaves out hair as the head covering.
@@doriesse824 (I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.) ...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes, scriptures outside of Corinthians mostly Essay by another: post length 7 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary.
@@user-iz8np3vv4i I HIGHLY suggest you watch all three of these videos, and stay away from corrupted Bible versions, which have added to/ taken from the Word of God. Plus the fact that short hair covers as much of a woman's actual head as long hair does, so it is not the hair that is her covering for prayer, etc.
@@doriesse824 * Where the problem usually begins… (I) If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. A typical question from those who are against hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being shaven than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Think about it. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II) If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III) If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected. (originally posted by FA)
Very interested in your messages, are you Mennonite? I read a lot of Anabaptist stuff. I myself belong to a (Plymouth) Brethren group, (started by John Nelson Darby), . Are you evangelical? I am genuinely interested, not debating you brother.
I much appreciate the fellowship I have had among the Brethren assemblies. I also have, by Bible study, gradually come to see some things not commonly taught by evangelical groups, but yet clear in Scripture--disciples as peacemakers (not war-makers); the disciples' life as as shared community (not merely a collection of individuals); and honoring God by applying seemingly minor things (head coverings, modesty of presentation, avoidance of extravagance). Now I gravitate toward others of like mind, believing all that is taught by Jesus and apostles, but not judging those who haven't done everything as we we would do.
Can you please explain how a woman who is not married and has short hair is subject to being "the glory of man". And how covering her short hair is covering her "glory". This makes no sense to me!
@Mélissa Ndiaye I look forward to attending the marriage feast of the Lamb. Right now I am dead in Christ, who has made me righteous, and is making me holy, as I am led by the Spirit. "We were buried with Christ through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we may live a new life, ...crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be done away with!... set free from sin, I have become a slave to righteousness! Romans 6: 4,6,18 "For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die, but if, by the Spirit, you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God" Romans 8:13&14.
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
I never loved head covering until I had a dream, that women should cover their heads in the presence of God with a headscarf 🧕 and it was shared to all women in church. That’s how I got the confirmation that women ought to cover their head in God’s presence.
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.) In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. -excerpt John 12 A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes Reply for post if desired. It includes scriptures and commentary.
I don't put my trust in dreams but in the clear word of God. I diligently researched this topic and came to the obvious conclusion and confirmation that women do not need to wear a head covering but that they ought to keep their head covered with long hair.
Within the realm of this misinterpretation, one can find that there exists an OBSESSION to speak about this topic incessantly. Evidence of this can easily be found online from various individuals who have made videos on head coverings. Many times it’s even the same person who makes more than one video on the subject. Going so far as to elevate it as though they were on some “mystical journey” or that there is some kind of “testimony” to share, even though there is no reason to regard it this way. Let me be clear, there is NO SCRIPTURAL reason to ever think that 1st Corinthians 11 propitiates this level of attention or “sacredness” towards coverings. Whether you think the head covering is a veil or hair the Bible does not give allowance to obsess or talk about this subject in such an extreme manner. Typically, proponents of wearing veils are those who will act somewhat cult-like by over-emphasizing it as though this were one of the most important topics of the entire Bible. Such people often repeatedly state in a very stubborn manner that they don’t care what others think and that they take any negativity as a badge of honor. They often refuse to listen to any biblical soundness because they are already convinced that what they are doing is right. In short, they basically close themselves off from any reasonable debate or discussion. Such persons often mention how they FEEL that they are somehow CLOSER to God by SIMPLY WEARING A VEIL, which is akin to those who believe that an inanimate object holds some kind of power like a talisman. Such dedication is like unto Catholics who say the exact same things regarding a scapula, crucifix, rosary, or prayer card. For the most part, their unwavering attachment to this is based more on EMOTION rather than something biblical. I’ve noted that many people who leave comments on RUclips videos on this topic repeatedly speak about how God or the Holy Ghost “convicted” them of wearing a veil. It’s never usually about how this or that verse convinced them, but rather some kind of spiritual or religious experience brought them to believe that they ought to wear a veil. This line of thinking can be very dangerous because if the experience does not line up with the Scriptures, then the alternative is an experience one is creating in their own mind or at worst something demonic in nature. For those who create videos, it’s gotten so that some will constantly and needlessly point to this topic in any way, shape, or form, from why they wear it, to how to wear it, to how they feel about it or how it has affected others, and so on. With all due respect, this is truly ridiculous. It is evident that for some this has become a form of fanatical extremism. Not unlike those who repeatedly talk about the Sabbath like the Seventh-Day Adventists or any other religion that over-focuses on one area of the Bible. Can you imagine that instead of focusing on the gospel they put more effort and concentration on something written briefly in one chapter of the whole Bible and on top of that misinterpreting it? The evidence is in the videos they make over and over on this ONE subject. This is a form of IDOLATRY. What’s even worse are those who claim that God TOLD them or LED them to put a hat, cap, or veil on their heads. If this is you, then I implore you to reconsider by reading the scriptures I have shared. It’s never too late to get it right.
Kieth Malcomson. / limerick city church..Also teaches on head coverings. He did a real good 3 or 4 pt. Study. Go check that out. He was extreamly thorough
I agree with everything you say but I think some of the arguments you make to prove your point are weak, like the man in 120ad (approx) having his head covered proves nothing and means nothing.
Do you have any teaching on earrings. Leviticus 19:28 Do not cut your bodies for the dead, and do not mark your skin with tattoos. I am the Lord. The bible says not to Pierce your skin. Do you have any teachings
It says not to pierce your skin *for the dead*. As long as you're not doing that, you're good. Genesis 24:22 shows a nose ring being worn. Keep in mind, though, that there is no mention of piercings in the new testament. By all means, do some more research on this, but I wanted to help you start out a bit.
the key is vers 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on head because of the angels. the Angels can´t see into the heart/mind of people, because For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 1. Cor 2,11 and For not a word in my tongue, , lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. Psalm 139,4 But They have a main intrest: Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. 1. Peter 1,12 The Angels a special part of the Church or for the believer Hebrews 1,13-14
This is an interesting take. I’ve never heard these teachings before. I will definitely consider and pray about them. I enjoyed learning these things. But I can’t help but disagree that it’s a “sin” to not wear one. Choosing not to cover your head simply can’t be “rebellion or blasphemy” against God over a piece of fabric. In the end, it’s our heart and attitude that really matters on this topic. Any woman can cover her head and still be proud and immodest. And then the head covering just becomes a status symbol- not a heart change. I respect women that are humble and modest and peaceable, whether they wear a head covering or not. So I am not against this idea - and God may yet convict me and change my mind. But calling out women who don’t is not my idea of grace.
@@Floweroftheprairie2720 but I have one doubt as in 1 Cor 11 : 16 " But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. " So that its not a debatable stuff and not at all a law naah?? As God ask us to follow some stuff strictly but here Paul the Apostle finishes the topic by its not a custom
God would not make womens hair their glory if it were not for it to be a natural covering. I don’t think either are wrong. I think the issue would be of a women having short or bald hair and then should cover. Also covering seems to be a main issue regarding prayer and prophesying not daily living.
Our hair is our natural covering (glory) and the cloth covering is for praying and prophesying (power on our heads, because of the angels) and we are told to pray without ceasing. If our hair is already short, we can't cut it off. We cannot put on and take off our natural covering.
@@jeffrachelburkhalter3783 Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
@@jeffrachelburkhalter3783 If hair is short it can still be cut further by shaving it. "6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or SHAVEN, let her be veiled. 7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: 9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: 10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels". 1 Cor 11:5-10 (ASV)
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 I'm really not understanding your point. I believe a woman should cover her head when we are gathered together, so I don't know why you're commenting to me about this. Maybe you didn't read my first comment properly.
I find it astounding that what you are proposing is that the word of God is saying that women have to entirely cover their heads in shame like Haman or Mordecai, in everyday life, not just while praying or prophesying in public assembly. This does not sound like my Father in heaven. Paul's letter was not an epistle, written to the whole early church, but was a letter written specifically to the church at Corinth, to address many issues in that specific group. He explains that the covering was a culture practiced to cover the "glory" of long hair, of women. If she didn't cover it she should cut it. Because it was her glory. Our glory should be God, not our appearance, flicking of hair and so forth. There is motive which is not beneficial. Women focussing on beautiful hair are not directing glory to God; rather they are attracting the attention to themselves. We need to seek to worship the Lord, and seek His Kingdom in all sincerity. In our culture, most women have their hair cut. It is not their "glory". Rather Christ is her glory, if she is a disciple. Why would a woman with short hair cover hair that is not her "glory"? This seems like the "heart" of the gospel is lost, and religious observances are commanded.
For me i am a deep Christian in the church of Pentecost from Rwanda. Many sister women in our church , they wear heading hair covering and if you were given a gift of holy spirit or if you are a prophet , you must wear head hair covering . For example , i attended one year at University which is residing here in Rwanda, Girls from our church at college must wear head hair covering and all Girls are very comfartable because they were different students at school. But for women and men are relationship with wear only watch on our body , not any cosmetics both women, girls and men , boys , if you do not do , you already mudt be dropped out of the church. What i want to say " if your church has displine you should follow , i think that you should do based on the Holy Bible says
Yes, you bring up something that's important. This passage of scripture isn't an issue in most of the world, only in America and the West since the emergence of feminism.
In the same chapter that communion is come an ordinance, the head covering for daughters of Christ comes. Though one is followed by most Christianity and the other is highly rebelled against. Either all the Bible is truth or none. Either both are God ordained or both are not. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19 KJV
The teaching was going well until he said ,” I don’t know why Paul wrote verse 15”. He said it earlier , you can’t make a verse say what you want. Period.
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
Why did Jesus let a woman wash his feet with her hair? Someone explain this to me? The woman literally worshiped God with her hair out..... And Jesus did not condemn her or request that she cover it. That's enough information for me to chalk up Paul's letters to situational codes of conduct .. which we should adopt in a way that considers our current church and situation
Very good point. We can only go by what the Scriptures say and since head coverings were NEVER ever an issue we should naturally assume that she did not have a head covering. There is no reason to ASSUME she had one.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter if head coverings were “never ever an issue” why is Paul having to address the “issue”? I don’t understand the clear wrongful condemnation of women who choose to wear one. We say it’s biblical you say otherwise. You won’t change our minds as we won’t change yours. No woman is shaming anyone for not wearing one. Like I’ve stated before, I’d rather wear one and be told later that I didn’t need to then told I needed to. I wear one for many reasons and that is just one. I don’t know why God told men to wear turbans yet. I’m still studying that and to be honest, I don’t really care. 🤷♀️
Probably but the likely issue is that it is a misinterpretation being passed along from certain sects who see the covering as a foreign object like a hat or veil instead of seeing the context where it repeatedly refers to hair.
Right - Holiness is the underlying, foundational requirement & -topic of God the Father's whole nature - Hair as a covering for women has the following meaning (for her face at times as she wants or chooses to cover her face, or her shoulders, or her chest as-&-when she wants - it is just the nature of a woman to use her hair in that way when she has long hair; it is designed by God like that FOR the women's comfort/security/exclusivity) Covering when prophesying or praying is a cloth/fabric/hat as a woman chooses (as trained, submissive warrior by the Holy Spirit) or in obedience to the Holy Spirit, per occasion. It is submitted that women who are sensitive to the Heavenly Friend and Comforter, the Holy Spirit, will not find it easy to pray or prophesy without a head covering(because the Holy Spirit wants to steer His female and male friends clear from dishonour), but if her conscience is trained/hardened to be self-willed and not be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit regarding the small things like attire, dress code, and the like, she will embrace dishonour blindly regarding the small things...incurring inevitable/eventual dishonour on her HEAD, which is her husband/man. Such dishonoured husband/man will also be inclined towards dishonouring Christ and believe, "well, it is life - let's work through it". If someone says, "...,but I'm unmarried..." Well 1 Cor 11:11 makes it clear that once one is really in Christ, then such man is not without woman or such woman is not without man. Clearly not easy-thinking-matter for the intellect. Clearly solid spirit-food. Dishonour is bad in its core, but that though, does not leave God without solution, because 1Cor15:43 shows that God clearly has a solution for something which has been sowed in dishonour. The main topic of the head covering nudges towards this - honour vs dishonour. Quite amazing to hear very learned people always asking:"what is dishonour?" when prompted with the topic. Honour and dishonour is not easily understood by humans, since all honour belongs to God the Father. Once the human engages into pursuing honour in the intellect's way, such human always fails and ends up in dishonour. To avoid the one and embrace the other is not easy to understand for the intellect, or free will, but meant for the obedient born again spirit which is trained how to subdue the flesh and soul into obedience of the Holy Spirit's desires, on-the-go. The Holy Spirit understands the weight and nature of honour and dishonour, therefore he is the only one that can guide safely on those narrow ledges at His Holy Mountain. It is noteworthy to mention that the devil's head is crushed easily by a woman who utilises the tool (head covering) in obedience to the Holy Spirit's prompting, at any given time. Shalom.
Furthermore it can be advised to women - explore the Father's response to your actions by utilising the head covering only in the inner room/private time of prayer, therefore in secret. You will stand amazed!...if you do not become aware of it, pray that God will restore your sensitivity to the Holy Spirit again to the levels He desires it to be.
Now, you are talking of covering only when prophesying yet you talk about honouring. Does honouring come only when prophesying? The Bible says a should have a covering because of the angels. This means full time covering.
@@josephkirimi5453 Yes, as with the most 'obvious' things of walking after the Spirit and not the flesh, this topic of the woman's head is not to be exhausted easily. It is true that every truth which christians live after, is really infallible, so much, that an eternity was specifically designed to explore all the smallest truths... The Father is really a forward-thinker...the Good Father!😃
@@johannventer9759 To understand the word of God needs wisdom from the holy spirit of God. Another plain truth is that, not everyone who reads the the Bible or believes he is a Christian is actually one. A christian has a mind of Christ and obeys his word without trying to change it or seem to explain it better than Christ did. Christ explained the meaning of parables, otherwise everything else is clear.
Moses put vail on his face when the congregation afraid of God's glory that shone through Moses' face. Exodus 34:30 (KJV) "And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him." Exodus 34:33-34 (KJV) "And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face. But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded." Moses did that because the congregation afraid of God's glory which shone through Moses's face. But when he went before God, he took the veil off. Moses did exactly what Paul said in his letter: 1 Corinthians 11:4 (KJV) "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head." "But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out." Moses praying in the present of God without covering his face/head. From that we know that actually Moses' face/head shone the glory of God and he didn't wear veil when he went before God, but it was the congregation's fear that "forced" him to put a veil on his face. But we believers of Christ are not afraid of God's Glory because Jesus made us confident to go in the present of God. Hebrews 4:16 (KJV) "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." That's why we, men don't use veil on our head because the glory of God shine through our head. And women should wear veil because they shine the glory of men. 1 Corinthians 11:7 (KJV) "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." Because only the glory of God that can shine among the congregation, not the glory of man, so the women musn't shine the glory of man. To do so, women should wear veil whenever praying to God. Is it hair or cloth? Did Moses use his hair or cloth? If Moses did wear cloth one, so the meaning of veil should be a cloth veil.
There's a further scripture that refers to that changing purpose ,yes it was initially to cover the brilliance of Gods splendored glory shining upon his face,but when that brilliance began to fade scripture states the covering was so they would not see it fading and references the veil upon the Jews heart none the less Read 2corinthians 3:12-14 specifically but ide suggest reading the entire passage
No way, bro....it says in 1 Corinthians 11:6 that if she is going to cut her hair she might as well shave it. It says it is a shame for her to be shaven. What Paul is saying here is uncut long hair is not a shame but if she cuts it she might as well shave it. meaning don't trim it a little bit not even at all-let it grow naturally. He's saying don't put scissors to your hair women. Men put scissors to your hair. In today's culture women cut their hair, women of God's image don't. And if you wear some fabric over your head what do you say about braided hair...it says not to braid it ...so look how crazy you sound having hair braided under a cover. Women don't braid their hair to not have it be seen by others. They braid it so it CAN BE SEEN. How could others even see the braid if they covered it by your so called 2nd covering of fabric. See I Timothy 2:9. The BIBLE clearly says BUT IF A WOMAN HAVE LONG HAIR (UNCUT) IT IS A GLORY TO HER: FOR HER HAIR IS GIVEN HER FOR A COVERING. 1 CORINTHIANS 11:15.
Wrong. Long hair is the covering. This is why men shouldn’t have long hair… because they ought not cover their head. Even nature itself teaches that it’s a shame for a man to have long hair covering his head. It’s so strange the lengths people go to in order to ignore the plain Word. The Word nowhere says it’s to cover her glory. Her glory is the symbol on her head… which is long hair.
If a woman refuses to cover her head before praying, then her head must be shaved. That is how serious a matter this is before Almighty God. 6" If a woman does not wear a veil, let her also cut off her hair; now if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her be veiled. 7 A man, indeed, ought not to have his head veiled, for he is an image and glory of God; but woman is a glory of man. 8 For it is not man who was made from woman, but woman was made from man. 9 And man was not created for woman, but woman for man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have authority over her head, because of her guardian angels." 1 Corinthians 11:6-10 (MontgomeryNT)
@@amandaparrish9128....... ..1 Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If she has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut his off each time before prayers, or of course be bald........{;o;}
Culturally men have been covering their heads all the time whether praying or in their daily lives. Paul would have done the same. The priests in the Temple were commanded by God to minister with turbans in their heads. All this is way out of wack, starting with the words spoken by Paul. I don't believe that would have been Paul's words. It would be going against God's Word.
@@YiskahBatYerushalayim It's one of the laws that Christ did away with. What Paul taught, he said he received from Christ, so this is the faith of Christ. The Levite priesthood used turbans but today Christ is the the high priest who is not a Levite but a Judah.
If Jesus Christ was our example of "glad submission", then women in turn would be following "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God", with their main focus being the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. Jesus clarifies that our attitude is not to seek our own good, but the good of others. Not to distract others from worshipping God. Here, motive and resultant action is key. Everything Jesus said was not religious, but had meaning, with motive emphasised. If we follow God blindly, without comprehending that He wants to lead our Iives intimately, in relationship, we are just keeping up appearances. Jesus spoke against this! We would be compelled to believe that bread is flesh, wine is blood, and we must practice cannibalism! I am careful not to follow decrees based on empty reason, without the teaching of the Spirit. It is those who are led by the Spirit who are the sons on God, Romans 8:14.
Hey women's attire is easy. Dress like women to in devout Muslim areas. Now men, the same way but I never hear the FOTW men ever talk about how us men should dress.
I would say Jael ,it was the spirit of God leading her actions to kill the king the Hebrew women who would not abort or murder the babies at the command of Herod Deborah I think as well Elizabeth with Mary
None of it It’s but religious Jesus Christ is the head covering ‘Let this mind be IN you AS it was IN Christ’ Jesus only said and did as was told and shown to Him by His Father - God thru Holy Spirit God builds not the man It’s by Him To Him For Him Only ‘8’ were in the ark Noah built like in the days of Noah so shall it be at the return of Christ with Sodom and Gomorrah once again
I recognize that photo of the girl with the head covering in the thumbnail. A girl on etsy who sells mennonite style head coverings used it. I wonder which one of you stole it. Either way, it's a sin as much as any other sin.
We are free to make reasonable use of information and photos if it's the public domain unless it's copyrighted and otherwise restricted. By the way, I'm very circumspect about using critical or damming speech against others, 1 Cor 6:9-10 calls such people verbal abusers, slanders or revilers and lists it as one of the sins that will keep us from the kingdom of Heaven.
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
the head covering for a woman is her long hair - not a hat or scarf read 1st Cor. 11: 14-15.......so listen to no man who says you must cover your head
"For if a woman doesn’t cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her head be covered." 1 Corinthians 11:6 This verse would make no sense if Paul was just talking about hair all 15 passages. It would be saying, "if she does not have long hair then she should cut her hair short" which makes no sense. Her hair is given to her as a physical covering, and a veil is the spiritual symbol of authority covering. The argument saying that culturally nobody understands this symbol anymore and that's why we don't practice it, holds more ground than twisting the Scriptures to say that it's just hair.
@@katiemurphy3601 .....Regarding head coverings - the command has a historical or cultural reason- unless you know the history you cannot explain the the reason for the command..it had to do with some women who dressed and acted like men but who also shaved their heads...while other women cut their hair in a man's style , so a cursory study of the passage will leave us all exegeting like fools...Corinth was a city with major problems as it was a sea port which was home for people from around the world and they all had different lifestyles and spiritual views. Read 2nd Peter 3: 16 for guidance reading Paul....just because you can't make sense of the verse that does not make your view right.
@@DavidKing-qd3sp Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
@@DavidKing-qd3sp This is the reason women are to wear a veil/head covering, and why men are forbidden. Nothing to do with any local culture, etc. "The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. 5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. 6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. 7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man". 1 Cor 11:3-7 (ASV) AMEN! Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
God's directions, for the head-covering, are explained in Deut. 6:8-9. It is for every child of God not just women or just men. There is neither male nor female in Jesus. Every child of God should cover their head with Jesus who is The Word. Jesus is The Word, John 1:1-5 The Word God spoke: Exodus 20:1 The Word God wrote: Deuteronomy 4:13 and The Word God made flesh John 1:14. He is our example of The Trinity. He is The Law that hung on the cross and The Law that is written in the heart. Psalms 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me Hebrews 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God. With obedience to The Father in Deut. 6:8-9, The Father anoints us with His Word, putting us in His Son, The Holy Spirit. Build up the body of Christ by 'putting on' The Lord. Cling to, dwell in the law (Ten Commandments) and testimony (Sermon on the Mount). We know His voice. His words are spirit and they are life. Hear Him. Prepare for your future and the life of your loved ones. As Paul tells us, "put on Jesus." Let's forget different religions and trust only in God.
@@thekingdomchristians9910 Jesus was sinless according to even the Pharisees, with exception of keeping their traditions. That means Jesus kept The Law just as we should. Yes, that includes obeying Deut. 6:8-9. How else could He be a perfect offering unto the Lord?
Well actually it doesn't say the word "wear" at least not in the KJV. It says the woman's head ought to be covered and the man's uncovered and given that much of the passages refer to hair so they are referring to long hair (covered) and short hair (uncovered). As we all know long hair covers the head, which applies in this instance. Much confusion is if there is really ONLY TWO instances being mentioned as opposed to being simply two examples. Note that only one (praying) is mentioned in verse 13. Why? because it was meant to be examples. If we say there are only two exclusive moments to supposedly wear something then one should not argue if a woman is "not covered" when talking in tongues, casting out devils, performing any other miracle, etc. Say this to most veil promoters and it is almost guaranteed that people would be against this. The idea behind these scriptures is that if a woman performs a holy act LIKE praying or LIKE prophesying and she is uncovered (meaning she is not covered in long hair) that it would not look right same thing for the man regarding a head covered in long hair (see verses 13 and 14), They were never ever referring to a fabric veil, hat or anything else separate from the body.
@@patrickhamilton7849 WOW verse 15 plainly states that God gave the woman long hair for a covering. How can you dare to say that a woman’s long hair (as God gave naturally to all women) cannot be a covering. Your words are in COMPLETE CONTRADICTION to the scriptures.😱
corinth 14 not saying women cant prophesy but questioning your husband loudly while church teaching sermons are going on interrupting services . , the apostles were fine with women preachers
Now, as far as head covering, the Bible doesn't specify what kind, right? So any hat would do? f you cover your head with something more culturally "acceptable, or normal" at least you'll be avoiding looking weird and you are covering your head...
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
@a basketboy If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That they are wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. If there where only two exclusive moments then one should have no problem if an “unveiled” woman speaks in tongues, interprets tongues, heals the sick, casts out devils, etc., right? Following such logic it stands to reason that the other instances that I mentioned should be acceptable WITHOUT a veil, right? Now should they say NO, then they should admit that there may be more instances; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, to be false. Please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that EXPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. People ASSUME this because they are misreading scripture. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in long hair. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real life scenario. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Did people really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? I am not saying this to be funny, but people have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved. Given that this comparison seems illogical one should consider that someone may be reading it wrong. For if “uncovered” means “short hair” then it fits the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair) then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved, since it is already short. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven than to being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman is somehow equal to being shaved. Please don’t dismiss this logic think about it for a minute. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women as well as headship. Bit as far as the physical head is concerned the question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say all of the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation. If we are to make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them without having to start studying Greek. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up into the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying? Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Someone needs to explain this logically. Again, don’t dismiss this think about it. Be honest, does looking at a woman doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying, that would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong by OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (aka short hair) while praying and a man having long hair. I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding, we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head “COVERED” in this verse refers to “LONG HAIR.” I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is being exclusive to two actions instead of seeing them as two examples. As stated before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off, ESPECIALLY in this verse, as it offers no examples or “supposed” exclusive conditions. In this instance it is to be understood that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. Keep in mind that short hair is NOT the same as being shaved. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. Unfortunately, people tend to get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seem like some kind of headwear but do not consider all the verses that show that “covering” means long hair and that “uncovered” is to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
4yrs ago I started seekingthe Lord.I saw women should wear coverings when they pray and prophesy,started wearing to pray&started wearing them all the time makes me feel closer to the Lord and I don’t care what people think may the Lord bless you all❤
Same happened to me.
Do you see a problem with the statement- "Makes me feel closer to the Lord"?
* Starting Off on the Right Foot…
It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. Therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise.
* Where the problem usually begins…
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for not doing so and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off.
Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered (meaning has short hair) would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair “without” a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved.
* Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and uncovered."
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering."
If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair.
* You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking….
If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to:
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there is something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ”
I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
@FA Thankyou for your attempt to make sense of 1 Corinthians 11. I think that God made Woman beautiful and to tell us we should wad up our hair under a rag doesn't make any sense. Laura's husband is saying that long hair is a sexual thing that needs covered up. This teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 without studying the Bible is a dangerous thing for married ladies who jump into rag wearing. I say dangerous because it could disturb their husbands and cause divorce.
"I don't care what people think...." Nice way to close the conversation. So does being closer to the Lord make one speak like this? Are we to take this like a holy and loving way to deal with people? I have to question this.
Within the realm of this misinterpretation one can find that there exists an OBSESSION to speak about this topic incessantly. Evidence of this can easily be found online whose own channels are inundated with videos on head coverings. Going so far as to elevate it as though they were on some “mystical journey” or that there is some kind of “testimony” to share about it with little to no biblical evidence. Let me be clear, there is NO SCRIPTURAL REASONING to ever think that 1st Corinthians 11 propitiates this level of attention or “sacredness” towards coverings. Whether you think the covering is a veil or hair the Bible does not give allowance to obsess or talk about this subject in such an extreme manner. But of course the proponents of wearing veils are typically those who will act somewhat cult-like by basically dedicating themselves to continually refer to head coverings as though this were one of the most important topics of the entire Bible. Such persons often repeatedly state in a very stubborn manner that they don’t care what others think, that they take any negativity as a badge of honor. They often refuse to listen to any biblical soundness because they are already convinced that what they are doing is right. In short they basically close themselves off to any reasonable debate or discussion.
Such persons often mention how they FEEL that they are somehow CLOSER to God by SIMPLY WEARING A VEIL, which is akin to those who believe that an inanimate object holds some kind of power like a talisman. Such dedication is similar to Catholics who say the exact same things regarding a scapula, crucifix, rosary or prayer card. For the most part their unwavering attachment to this is based more on EMOTION rather than something biblical.
Here’s all I know. It’s anecdotal but it’s all I have. When I first started reading the Bible for myself, I came across this passage and I’d never heard anyone speak on the subject before. I felt convicted to start wearing some sort of covering on my head. I would wear it basically all day and night because I walked around talking to God all the time and it was just more convenient for me to leave it on. This was my practice for many days and nights and it never came off of my head even while I slept. Well one night after some time Of wearing it without incident I kept waking up out of my sleep because of SEVERE back pain. When id wake up the scarf would be off my head. Id tie it back on. The pain would quickly subside and then I’d drift off to sleep again. It would happen again severe pain in my back. Wake up. Scarf off my head. This went back and forth many times until I finally caught on and just prayed and asked God to make whatever was attacking me in my sleep stop. After I prayed this it stopped. My scarf stayed on my head the rest of the night. I was under heavy demonic attack at the time because I had just given my life back over to the Lord after years in witchcraft, black magic, and new age practices. They weren’t happy with me that I was taking this walk of salvation so seriously. I believe we are supposed to cover our heads as women. Not with hair but with a covering.
We are missionaries in Honduras and I got attacked when I obeyed the Lord and wore a headcovering in public.
One woman had an open vision and she saw if the woman doesn’t cover her head- demons are sitting on top of it! Head have to be covered even at night-you are right, sister!
@@reachhonduras8955they probably took you for a Muslim. Homdurans do not tolerate other religions or the Jewish people acting as if they’re superior to others. Latino Christians are looser in dress than the European Christians. I’m saying this as a Honduran man’s wife and a Latvian living in Miami. You were mistaken for a person of another religion.
This was a good and clear message. But it’s a bit discouraging to come to the comments section and see now many divided opinions and interpretations there are. My desire is to be obedient to God’s word. To spend time in prayer and ask God to lead me to understand these scriptures. Without being led astray by human understanding.
Yes exactly!
it seems that the Church adapts, to the culture......and not to the Bible......
not really like that it can be like that we say that there two kingdoms so what I think is you changing from the culture of the world to culture of God that's what I can say lets share idears
Like the western dress of the men in this church?
That's according 2 u a thoughts
Covering your head is adapting to culture. You're just doing it in the reverse.
@@johnplain1546 ahahhaha
Father thank you for this brother's studies of this issue on headcovering. Forgive me for my ignorance of your Word. Teach us to be submissive to your authority in Christ and obey your Son and ever to be renewed in your Spirit.
Long hair to a woman is a glory to her and covering it is a glory to God.
Well said. Amen
How can it be her glory of you can’t see it?
@@davidchupp4460 She is glorified by those who see her while she should be glorifying God by covering it. This is biblical am not the one who is saying it.
@@josephkirimi5453 glorified to see her long hair? This has to make sense or otherwise it’s a play on words. Every man knows long hair is glorious on a woman. It’s not glorious if it’s covered. Where in the text does it say it’s a glory to God to cover her head? You are twisting the words to fit your idea. If anything it says it’s dishonoring ME. My wife used to wear one and dishonored me all the time with her actions and words. Now she doesn’t and she’s way more honoring. It’s our actions not a piece of lace that matters to me.
Personally, I began to cover to honor Christ who is my head. I'm a single, never married, woman. Lately it's a modesty issue for me. I wear it alot, because it feels to be more modest.
Beautiful to hear those children in the background.
Yes definitely! Coming from a church were 99% of children get taken to the nursery
May God bless you and keep you and may God's face shine upon you and be gracious to you. May the Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace. Thank you for being a light of truth in this dark world, I have been searching and starving for a teaching just like this and I head cover now.
Pray for me ... I'm just now coming across this , in this way . I'm seeking the Lord about this.
I am too!
I will be praying for you both.
Me too!
Praying for you
Are you guys in Europe?
I’m big fan of women modesty
My husband showed me the verses about wearing a head covering when I pray.
Well when asked or when I have the opportunity to share why I have my head covered at all times except when it’s being groomed I explain it this way.
The Bible says that women are not to pray with their heads uncovered…and it also commands us all to pray unceasingly. So that means that a woman’s head should be covered at all times.
Also if you believe that God is alive and want to know what He means in 1 Corinthians 11 (and every other book, chapter and verse of His word) ask HIM.
If I wrote a book and you wanted to know what I meant in a particular passage - if you had unfettered access to me - would you go ask someone else what I meant or would you come and ask me? If you would come and ask me…then why aren’t you going and asking God?
Clarisse
At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we?
“Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much.
-excerpt Luke 7
Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone...
-excerpt John 12
*sigh*
First - you don’t need to ask me what God cares about - you should ask that directly to Him. If you have a relationship with Him then I encourage you to do just that. God is alive and has spoken to His people since the beginning of time. Jesus said that His sheep HEAR His VOICE. So if you want to know what He thinks, feels, means…then ask Him directly. If you don’t hear His voice then you should ask the Holy Ghost to reveal to you whether or not you are actually a follower of Christ and a child of God.
Second…nowhere in either of those verses does it say that the woman’s head was uncovered. You can have the crown and even the majority of your HEAD covered (for example with a veil) and still have your HAIR flowing down if your hair is long. Not every woman who covers her HEAD wraps up her HAIR in the covering. So I’m sorry but I cannot agree with your examples from scripture because you are making an inference that is not contained in the plain literal reading of the text.
I know this is true because I cover my head every day and sometimes my HAIR in totality is ALSO covered but often my HAIR in it’s totality is not. But my HEAD is always covered nonetheless and I use various head coverings to accomplish this purpose. Head coverings include veils, doilies, kippahs, scarves, hats, headbands, turbans, etc. and the list goes on and on.
And actually if you watched
the first video you will recall that the speaker said that they went to a bed and breakfast and the woman who greeted them had a head covering that he thought was too small. He acknowledged that her head was covered - even if he thought the covering was insufficient for his taste.
@@clarissesaunders7164 If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions for them to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered no one disputes this but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
As I mentioned earlier some will lay claim that they must be referring to a physical head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. Allow me to expand on this if you will because this is very important.
If you are going to make the argument to prove your point that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible supposedly claims that women ought to wear a veil based on two conditions, then it is only logical to understand that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one; for example: if the woman is speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should deny this, meaning that the woman should wear their “veil” under other conditions then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
Please note that the belief in women wearing veils for many groups hinges on this “two-condition” argument because if there were actual conditions then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. But keep in mind that it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off. Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promotor would not go along with this.
Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be another reason for men not to cover. Therefore if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should he not be covered under any condition because of verse 7?
Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, we should be asking when they are referring to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered."
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
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 the case, then to be uncovered would mean to have 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 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
* You Should Naturally Know Right from Wrong by Just Looking….
If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to:
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is very important so please don’t dismiss it.
Be honest with yourself do YOU really believe that the average person will look at an unveiled, praying woman and naturally think a VEIL is missing? Are we to assume that Paul expected the average person to have instilled within them the idea that a foreign object is missing from a woman? I have never seen or heard anyone say something like: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head?” after looking at a long-haired, praying woman. To so do would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. I think can say with some assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a woman with short hair especially if we are looking at their backs to confirm whether the person was male or female. It seems like a natural reaction especially when we were young.
Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong: whether it be OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (a.k.a. short hair) while praying or OBSERVING a man having long hair.
In addition, by using the word “NATURE” one can’t even use the excuse that perhaps they were expecting only Christians to see something different. Clearly, if “nature” teaches us that something looks off then it must be including all of mankind as nature teaches all of us both Christian and non-Christian.
I would like to also add that these verses are NOT jumping from the discussion of a “veil” in verse 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in verse 14 like some would like to argue because you will note that verse 15 refers again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” is to mean “long hair.” Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses are referring to hair length. By this, we can understand verse 4 which states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered as I previously mentioned.
I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due to the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is exclusive to two conditions instead of seeing them as two examples. As mentioned before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR.
You know…my husband showed me that verse when we first got married…and do you know when I started wearing a head covering? When the Holy Ghost made it clear to me that I have been commanded to do so. I know you wrote a lot of words and I am going to admit that I didn’t read them because I want to be clear about this. I am not following a doctrine of man. I didn’t even start wearing it in obedience to my husband. I do it because GOD told me to. And then I confirmed with HIM that I should.
I know that people who do not have a relationship with God cannot understand this…but Yeshua ha-Maschiach SPEAKS to those who are HIS. Ruach HaKodesh always confirms His messages and teachings. You do not have to depend on the teachings of men - nor should you - when you have direct conversations with God. So none of what they taught in the video or what anyone types here changes what GOD has said TO me. And if you don’t think God speaks directly to those who are HIS…then I encourage you to ask Him to reveal Himself to you. Pray. Seek. Knock until He does and until you HEAR HIS VOICE and you FOLLOW HIM.
I always wondered why head coverings are worn and now I know through your explanation of scripture thank you
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while
assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off.
So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head
when praying to God.
If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair
each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
Let this mind be in you as it was in Christ
Jesus Christ is the head covering
the head of - Leader and the mind of- the born again believer - spiritually
Head of- the Church
Mind of -the believer
Synonymous with each other
Of the same
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 Well actually it doesn't say the word "assembling" neither is the word "wear" found at least not in the KJV. It says the woman's head ought to be covered and the man's uncovered and given that much of the passages refer to hair so they are referring to long hair (covered) and short hair (uncovered). As we all know long hair covers the head, which applies in this instance. Much confusion is if there is really ONLY TWO instances being mentioned as opposed to being simply two examples, which is what misleads people to think that if there are conditions it must mean that the covering is something that can be taken off or put on. But hey wer NOT conditions they were JUST two examples. Note that only one (praying) is mentioned in verse 13. Why? because they were meant to be examples. If we say there are only two exclusive moments to supposedly wear something then one should not argue if a woman is "not covered" when talking in tongues, casting out devils, performing any other miracle, etc. Say this to most veil promoters and it is almost guaranteed that people would be against this. The idea behind these scriptures is that if a woman performs a holy act LIKE praying or LIKE prophesying and she is uncovered (meaning she is not covered in long hair) that it would not look right same thing for the man regarding a head covered in long hair (see verses 13 and 14),
They were never ever exclusivel refer to a fabric veil, hat or anything else separate from the body.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Good point I have searched many versions and only found one that states assembly but that's after searching many Bibles, therefore, using this word is very questionable and looking at the Greek one will not find the reason to translate it that way. Great logic.
the lord bless you ,a beautiful ordinance that blessed heart that submit to it.
Thank you. You've made some great points.
AWESOME teaching...!!!!!!!!!!!!
I do not cut my hair and I cover my head. Makes me feel closer to God and good about myself.
@a basketboy
I agree. My hair grows very fast and I keep it long but trim it as much as 4 to 6 " twice a year to keep it healthy and a blessing.
If the Word of God says “uncut,” I would venture to believe that’s what it means. Must we not be doers of God’s word?
You are being a lovingly obedient daughter. Praise God. Thank you for your testimony. May all the Glory go to God and His Kingdom grow.
That was very self-righteous
Having short or long hair doesn't make you closer to God, there are women who can't grow their hair long or who have thin hair and have to cut it, if your hair is what makes you feel good about yourself you need some self reflection
@@liliesofthefield5310 🤦🏼♀️🤦🏼♀️of course there’s always gotta be that one who twists and adds to what was said. How about you do some self reflection yourself
This is the best teaching on this subject I have ever heard. Very clear and concise. Using the Greek words makes it unrefutable.
I'm a Christian woman in the States that has off and on covered both in church and at home. This makes sense to me to cover.
My favorite part was where it translated as beautiful shawl.gives such a glorious mental picture.
Thank you for your work on this subject.
the head covering is the - Hair ...1st Cor. 11: 14-15....give me a text that differs from the Greek or one that supports your view...
@@DavidKing-qd3sp The Greek word used for covering in 1 Corinthians 11 verses 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, is the word, katakalýptō, from katá, "down, and kalýptō, "to cover," cover down, to make appropriate, i.e. to wear a veil. It is the same word used for the veil that separated the Holy of Holies from the priests.
Only in verse 15, where Paul is giving an example from nature is a different word used. "But if a woman has long hair, it is her glory. For her hair is given to her for a covering." Here the word for "cover" is "peribolaion," that which is tossed around or a mantel that can be thrown around the shoulders and body (As in when a woman tosses or throws her hair around).
Thus, Paul speaks about two coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. One is long hair and the other is a veil.
@@KaitlinLuksa ....head coverings were a cultural thing but if you want to wear one thats up to oyu but it is not a salvation point...all the best to you but do read 2nd peter 3.16
@@KaitlinLuksa ................Kaitlan, there are bigger salvation point issues beyond head coverings , for example do you keep the 7th day Sabbath as the bible teaches or do oyu keep Sunday the first day of the week...read Ex. 20.8-11 and Ev. 23.32...sabbath is from friday evening to saturday evening...did you also know that 99% of christians are wrong on Hell, hell-fire is a fire that annihilates the wicked and then the fire goes out for God is love and love does not torture for eternity unless God's first name is Adolph...read the book the fire that consumes by william edward fudge
@@DavidKing-qd3sp I prefer to get my doctrine from the Bible. We can at least agree that head covering is not a salvation issue. However it is incorrect to say head covering is merely cultural. It is no less a Christian tradition that should be upheld than baptism and the Lord's Table.
I like what you are teaching pastor. Many denominations don't teach this and so they just believe God is on there side while he says even their prayers are just noise in his ears because of disobedience. I think you can join the church of God which is the only true church.
Excellent teaching! Thank you so much!! This encourages me to continue to cover my head. God bless you.
I’ve noted that many people who leave comments on RUclips videos on this topic repeatedly speak about how God or the Holy Ghost “convicted” them of wearing a veil. It’s never usually about how this or that verse convinced them, but rather some kind of spiritual or religious experience brought them to believe that they ought to wear a veil. This line of thinking can be very dangerous because if the experience does not line up with the Scriptures, then the alternative is an experience one is creating in their own mind or at worst something demonic in nature.
Such persons often mention how they FEEL that they are somehow CLOSER to God by SIMPLY WEARING A VEIL, which is akin to those who believe that an inanimate object holds some kind of power like a talisman. Such dedication is like unto Catholics who say the exact same things regarding a scapula, crucifix, rosary, or prayer card. For the most part, their unwavering attachment to this is based more on EMOTION rather than something biblical. There are some who believe that they have to wear something 24/7 to avoid bad dreams, or pain or anything else negative. Such a person is creating their own dogmas and do not even realize it. Many Christian women do not wear it and do not have these symptoms but if one is obsessed with it they can create their own problems as they allow their minds to believe it.
Can you imagine that instead of focusing on the gospel they put more effort and concentration on something written briefly in one chapter of the whole Bible and on top of that misinterpreting it? The evidence is in the videos they make over and over on this ONE subject. This is a form of IDOLATRY. What’s even worse are those who claim that God TOLD them or LED them to put a hat, cap, or veil on their heads. If this is you, then I implore you to reconsider by reading the scriptures. It’s never too late to get it right.
hello!! i’m so curious why you are so against head coverings? the difference between the catholic practices and women who head cover is that it’s rooted in the scripture of 1 corinthians. as far as i know, the women i know that veil read the passage and were CONVINCED by THE WORD to veil. who is our teacher? The Holy Spirit!!
@@irelda Hi. I think wearing a head covering is fine so I am not against that. It is when it crosses the doctrinal line. There really isn't any doctrine about covering a woman's head with a veil or a hat in 1st Corinthians 11. The women I know who read that passage especially if they are not reading the modern corrupt version will not see the idea of veiling. If you read the KJV you will find that it says that the woman's head ought to be covered but the word covered is not exactly a noun. But when we read the rest of the verses we get to read the word hair written 3x and shorn and shaven 4 times. But not the words, cloth or veil. Paul was simply saying women ought to cover their heads with long hair and men should not cover their heads with long hair (aka uncovered).
Unfortunately many have misinterpreted Paul's teaching to think it is regarding a physical and separate object. Just like many believers and alleged believers believed in purgatory or infant baptism or the popery etc. So, people can be wrong for a long time and this belief is no different. That is why we should be convicted by the Scripture which teaches us the truth and discern whether what certain groups think is or isn't scriptural.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter interesting!! but how do you reconcile the church history of women covering their heads as a symbol of submission? no matter the denomination, all women did cover their heads at one point in accordance to 1 corinthians 11. it’s only recently that the interpretation of that passage has changed. that’s one of the things that helped me understand the passage in its context.
@@irelda Ok so let’s follow through with your premise. So the idea that the fact that women wore a veil or hat throughout history should apparently be considered as evidence. Now I can agree that some women wore head coverings in certain parts of the world. Now I don’t think I would accept your assertion that women covered their heads as a symbol of submission, that would be just too hard to prove. I doubt you would be able to provide enough evidence that every woman wore it because of this. So let’s stick with things we can form a logical conclusion. Therefore, in regard to church history and your premise that if enough churches practiced head coverings for a long enough time then one should take into consideration that this doctrine must be true.
If this is the basis of our belief, then there is no reason to dismiss other doctrines that fall into this premise of yours. According to this logic the fact that many churches practiced and followed infant baptism or purgatory or Popes or Mary and Saints worship or adoration, etc. is enough to prove their worthiness and acceptance. The RC church alone would easily favor this idea because they have over a thousand years of existence with millions of people believing in all sorts of doctrines.
So this logic really doesn’t make sense now does it?
This logic is even easily discarded biblically. Recall when Stephen spoke about temple building minutes before he was stoned. He described in detail how temple building was not God’s idea though God allowed it to occur. So from the time of Solomon until Stephen’s preaching which were many years with perhaps millions of people (God’s people) believing that it was a good idea to build a temple. But from the way Stephen describes God’s reaction it would clearly seem he was not pleased (Acts 7:47-52).
So according to the bible is it possible that God’s people can get things wrong for a long time? Apparently so. Is it not written My people are destroyed due to lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6)?
The facts are that this was just another misinterpreted doctrine like so many others that despite the fact it was practiced does not make it biblical truth. You cannot use the fact that a small amount of Catholic people rebelled against head coverings which apparently started in an idolatrous RC church as a way to rebel against a false priest in a small place in Michigan in the US seems highly unlikely it would suddenly turn the entire planet against head coverings. That just seems like a huge stretch for anyone to believe.
As true Christians we are to use Scripture to determine what is right or wrong not because of the actions of false Christians who believe in works for salvation plus a ton of false doctrines.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Tim 3:16)
So what needs to be reconciled really is whether you stand on the scriptures or the actions and practices of others?
@@irelda Ok so let’s follow through with your premise. So the idea that the fact that women wore a veil or hat throughout history should apparently be considered as evidence. Now I can agree that some women wore head coverings in certain parts of the world. Now I don’t think I would accept your assertion that women covered their heads as a symbol of submission, that would be just too hard to prove. I doubt you would be able to provide enough evidence that every woman wore it because of this. So let’s stick with things we can form a logical conclusion. Therefore, in regard to church history and your premise that if enough churches practiced head coverings for a long enough time then one should take into consideration that this doctrine must be true.
If this is the basis of our belief, then there is no reason to dismiss other doctrines that fall into this premise. According to this logic the fact that many churches practiced and followed infant baptism or purgatory or Popes or Mary and Saints worship or adoration, etc. is enough to prove their acceptance. The RC church alone would easily favor this idea because they have over a thousand years of existence with millions of people believing in all sorts of doctrines.
So this logic really doesn’t make sense now does it?
This logic is even discarded biblically. Recall when Stephen spoke about temple building minutes before he was stoned. He described in detail how temple building was not God’s idea though God allowed it to occur. So from the time of Solomon until Stephen’s preaching which were many years with perhaps millions of people (God’s people) believing that it was a good idea to build a temple. But from the way Stephen describes God’s reaction it would clearly seem he was not pleased (Acts 7:47-52).
So according to the bible is it possible that God’s people can get things wrong for a long time? Apparently so. Is it not written My people are destroyed due to lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6)?
The facts are that this was just another misinterpreted doctrine like so many others that despite the fact it was practiced does not make it biblical truth. You cannot use the fact that a small amount of RC people rebelled against head coverings which apparently started in an idolatrous church as a way to rebel against the preacher who was say women ought to wear a hat in order to receive communion. This occurred in a small place in Michigan which seems highly unlikely that it would suddenly turn the entire planet against head coverings. That just seems like a huge stretch for anyone to believe.
As true Christians we are to use Scripture to determine what is right or wrong not because of the actions of false Christians who believe in works for salvation plus a ton of false doctrines.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Tim 3:16)
So what needs to be reconciled really is whether you stand on the scriptures or the actions and practices of others?
Very good teaching. I am listening and have started to cover my head. You asked about God visiting a woman in the O.T, Genesis 21, He visited Sarah.
Right
- Holiness is the underlying, foundational requirement & -topic of God the Father's whole nature -
Hair as a covering for women has the following meaning (for her face at times as she wants or chooses to cover her face, or her shoulders, or her chest as-&-when she wants - it is just the nature of a woman to use her hair in that way when she has long hair; it is designed by God like that FOR the women's comfort/security/exclusivity)
Covering when prophesying or praying is a cloth/fabric/hat as a woman chooses (as trained, submissive warrior by the Holy Spirit) or in obedience to the Holy Spirit, per occasion.
It is submitted that women who are sensitive to the Heavenly Friend and Comforter, the Holy Spirit, will not find it easy to pray or prophesy without a head covering(because the Holy Spirit wants to steer His female and male friends clear from dishonour), but if her conscience is trained/hardened to be self-willed and not be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit regarding the small things like attire, dress code, and the like, she will embrace dishonour blindly regarding the small things...incurring inevitable/eventual dishonour on her HEAD, which is her husband/man. Such dishonoured husband/man will also be inclined towards dishonouring Christ and believe, "well, it is life - let's work through it". If someone says, "...,but I'm unmarried..." Well 1 Cor 11:11 makes it clear that once one is really in Christ, then such man is not without woman or such woman is not without man. Clearly not easy-thinking-matter for the intellect. Clearly solid spirit-food.
Dishonour is bad in its core, but that though, does not leave God without solution, because 1Cor15:43 shows that God clearly has a solution for something which has been sowed in dishonour.
The main topic of the head covering nudges towards this - honour vs dishonour. Quite amazing to hear very learned people always asking:"what is dishonour?" when prompted with the topic. Honour and dishonour is not easily understood by humans, since all honour belongs to God the Father. Once the human engages into pursuing honour in the intellect's way, such human always fails and ends up in dishonour. To avoid the one and embrace the other is not easy to understand for the intellect, or free will, but meant for the obedient born again spirit which is trained how to subdue the flesh and soul into obedience of the Holy Spirit's desires, on-the-go. The Holy Spirit understands the weight and nature of honour and dishonour, therefore he is the only one that can guide safely on those narrow ledges at His Holy Mountain.
It is noteworthy to mention that the devil's head is crushed easily by a woman who utilises the tool (head covering) in obedience to the Holy Spirit's prompting, at any given time.
Shalom.
Furthermore it can be advised to women - explore the Father's response to your actions by utilising the head covering only in the inner room/private time of prayer, therefore in secret. You will stand amazed!...if you do not become aware of it, pray that God will restore your sensitivity to the Holy Spirit again to the levels He desires it to be.
@@johannventer9759
I disagree with the assessment that the woman is to cover her hair in obedience to "the Holy Spirit" primarily and believe this is just a modernist approach
to the ethical dilemma the bible presents us with: that Eve was made for Adam.
the OT meekness of Angels and Beasts:
We see a pattern of "the lesser blessed by the greater" and "he who [wishes] to be great, must serve the others": in particular in the passages regarding the meekness of the
"Donkey" and the Angel - towards the undeserving Balaam. In the same way even Abigail was pressed to give supplies to David behind Nabals back: not daring to openly
rebell against his authority; but like Gideon with his own works did so in "the cover of the night".: and this is the common plea of the woman: even if she is wiser - the authority that man has over her comes from God and is not to be overruled lest it is for the sake of the house - or for a time of fervent prayer.
Women in the Epistles and the body of Christ:
For any accurate reader then it becomes obvious that Paul in his letter to Timothy is openly biased against Women in regards to leadership: >for Man did not Sin; but the Woman did< while also remarking that >Women will be blessed/saved< by childbearing.: where the woman does have authority over males because she is most exalted [as is mary] in her lifegiving qualities: In the case of her raising children the woman towers over the man: for which the man ought to be the head of her like Christ did: laying down his life for her - but also having authority over her body - as Timothy clearly gives the partner- the husband or the wife: in either case - full ownership over the spouses body.
The meaning of "power on their head":
Connected with this passage: "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head, because of the angels."
the Verse Ezekiel 10:1-22 elaborates on what this exactly means: that Angels as servants carry the throne of God on their "head"
So this literally is >THE power of God: his throne< on their heads.
This means the woman is like Angels: beautiful, glorious, and a valuable servant:
She ought to be "like unto an angel" and "profitable for the whole congregation":
she is to cover her head in rememberance of those:
...who are not prideful and cover their glory with their wings: and have the power on their head
...who must stay their power/beauty even in the face of the undeserving
(the Angels mentioned in the verse above are not those mentioned in Genesis 6:1)
The Woman then; being equipped with greater power: to give life, must be put into subjection; she must submit to her spouse and her body is his;(his body is also hers;)
and she is to do this for the sake of the house and her honour:
So primarily and before all other things: she is to be profitable in the upbringing of children therefore "covering her head" to "be like the angels" who are comforters.
It is that simple.: Eve, by God: was made for Adam: not for her own good: but as his glory.
@@a-sheepof-christ9027 .... thy many words are self-refuting. If thou require specific evidence, kindly use the following spirit-level as vetting tool - "Time-Will-Tell" -
Shalom.
@@a-sheepof-christ9027 @a-Sheep of-Christ
Thy dissertation is self-refuting. If thou require specific evidence, use the following spirit-level as vetting tool - Time-Will-Tell
Shalom
Excellent! Thank you!
I can see you raising up your hands in prayer as taught in Timothy, good.
I cover ny head every day
Amen
It is not about what you wear rather it is staying connected to the Spirit of God. There is a balance everyone travels. I look better with a little color on my hair and face. I wear clothes that are modest and do not stand out. I blend in with the congregation. My focus is my relationship with God. If you believe that God is asking you to cover your head, then do it. We must obey the Spirit. ♥️
It is about what one wears
So called christians dress like the world incl their tattoos- piercings and the like
Jesus had disciples who were being discipled
Make no mistake
God has but one pattern for the Church- New Testament
And One the sample of the Leader of the Church- Jesus Christ
-example-
this iPhone changes my words like man changes the word of God- automatically and requires to be corrected
Holy Spirit brings Unity of the Faith- Only
He is the Gatekeeper to the Kingdom of God
Jesus Christ is the Door
Holy Spirit ushers the person over the threshold for He alone is the Witness to it
the seed of God as He was for Jesus Christ the Only Begotten Son of God - who was God- immaculate conception - by Holy Spirit
So too every Son and Daughter since Jesus sent Holy Spirit to continue the mission- building a spiritual Tabernacle- Temple Tent of Meeting to dwell on n- the born again believer
@@mandycote5662 Again, if the Spirit of God compels you to dress a certain way, then obey. I am 70 yrs old and have traveled down the narrow path since I came to earth. I am modest because the Spirit of Mary is modest and that is our guide as females. The Spirit of God does the work from the inside out. I attended catholic school for 12 years and wore uniforms with button up blouses. We all dressed alike so that we were taught modesty together. Be careful of extremes in either direction. Follow what Jesus said "if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out". Do what you need to do to not sin....♥️
@LEKAT 52 Why are you here, in a non-catholic group, in a thread on the headcoving?
@@tcmenez3648 Perhaps the Holy Spirit sent me to remind me and to share wisdom with you. Thank you for reminding me of modesty. I will bother you no more ♥️
Thank you and Blessings 👵🙏💖🙏
1 Cor. 11:15 in the interlinear translation says veil which is different to headcovering
I cover my head since 2012 for the glory of God. Amen🙏🙌
If the covering is a woman's hair, why tell her to wear it during prayer and prophesying? Her hair is already on her head.
Does that also mean the man should remove his hair while praying? 😆 that would be quite a sight.
😆
Love this!🤣
Exactly
Long hair, not just hair. Read carefully.
Basically God gave hair to women as a covering but when Jesus came with salvation he taught that anyone who'd like to follow him should not beautify herself and so gave a command that women should cover their heads and this is actually one area they use to glorify themselves.
Excellent!
Is there a 3rd message in this series? I have found the first 2 but am interested in the third?
I studied this 1 Corinthian 11 passage. My conclusion so far is that it is a covering of fabric as well. I love Gods order and it is displayed throughout Scripture. He instructs in the old testament that women should not wear clothes of men ( and vis versa) I have been told by church leadership that head covering is not our culture. Hmmm, I thought " but isn't that 'tradition' and we are told to not follow men, traditions of, and follow Christ
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse.
If a woman has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God.
If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
It also says that a woman's hair is given unto her for a covering
Baptism, communion, foot washing… these, too, are traditions… yet we still still practice them. We can’t pick snd choose which traditions we practice and which we don’t… that’s a point I would respectfully bring up to church leadership. 😊🙏🏽
The pastors are afraid of the feminists movement/Jezebel culture. Many pastors are afraid of their women covering outside the church because they are afraid of the culture. I would say to also read/study Numbers 5:18 about headcovering being removed during judgment. Also Isaiah 47:2 in context, and psalm 140:7.
@@messianichebrewshawnkawcak1550 , Thank you for these additional texts to check out!
If women are to be totally silent in church, how in the world can they praise, or sing, or even fellowship? There is nowhere in the Bible that it says a woman cannot pray or prophecy in church. Sometimes we have to rightly divide the Word and dig deeper.
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. 1 Cor 14:34
What version of the Bible do you all use, that doesn't have the misleading subtitles? I would love to buy one. Mine, the NLT, also had the instructions for public worship subtitle.
Exodus 15:20
And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.
I don't know if anyone else answered this. But that is an example as an answer to his question regarding his search for an old testament prophetess
I was also thinking of Deborah…
The Ancient Church had an Apostolic Custom or Tradition such that women veiled their head and men kept their head open during public worship (1Cor 11:16). This was based on the protocol of covering symbols of human glory while uncovering symbols of divine glory during corporate worship because of the angels. Culturally, we know that Jews and Romans worshipped with head covering for both men and women, while Greeks worshipped without head covering for both men and women. So, this was neither Jewish nor Roman, nor even Greek culture. Rather it was peculiar apostolic custom in the Church (1Cor 11:2,16) meant to conceal human glory and exhibit Divine Glory for authority and dignity before the Angels during Church’s messianic worship gatherings. It has nothing to do with submission to husbands or submission to slave masters or distinction between adults and minors or any other conjectures that are not found in the text and do not fit the context of this passage of Scripture.
God has set signs and symbols for this messianic Church order and apostolic Church LITURGICAL custom in view of presence of angelic host during corporate worship:
The man and the woman are the IMAGE of God (Gen. 1:27),
But the Man’s head symbolizes God’s GLORY (i.e. Christ 1Cor 11:3, 7),
Whereas the Woman’s head symbolizes Man’s GLORY (1Cor 11:3, 7),
The Woman’s long hair symbolizes Woman’s GLORY (1Cor 11:15).
Apostolic corporate worship protocol, because of Angels in attendance, is to cover symbols of human glory but uncover symbols of divine glory.
Interesting!
Many people in this chat are making this way too confusing. I have never worn a head covering but have only dived deeper into my relationship with God over the past 5 years. I am seeking answers, not confusion, legalism, and spirit of religion. We are under new covenant because of Christ. Don't make this harder than it is. Based on scripture alone fabric headcovering is the way to go. One cannot put on and take off hair for prayer so it's the only thing that makes sense.
How do you know that Philip‘s daughters didn’t prophesy in the assembly? Just because he mentioned they went to their house and that the daughter‘s prophesy doesn’t mean that he didn’t hear that they prophesied in the assembly.
Acts 21:8-9 never says where Phillip's daughters prophesied. The text does not indicate that they prophesied in the home or that they only prophesied in the home.
This is so true !
I'm struggling with knowing if I should cover just at corporate worship on Sundays or all the time. But not showering or sleeping. From when I wake up to bedtime prayer at night. I'm not trying to over complicate it or be legalistic.
Me thinking to only cover for Sunday worship feels like I might be trying to justify not wearing it other times. But I'm looking for biblical backing to this.
Husband's account *
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.)
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her...
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
My thoughts: post length 7 minutes, scriptures outside of Corinthians mostly
Essay by another: post length 7 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians
Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary.
There are a couple of things that you might want to establish as certainty before going all into something that might be based on something very loosely or with very little scriptural evidence.
1. First, one must find out if what the bible means by covering is only performed within a certain place or time frame today or if it should occur everywhere and all the time. Meaning does it say it should be done while in church? Because if it really doesn't then when we can put that aside.
2, Second, how sure can we be that the covering is a separate object instead of hair? This question must be asked given that hair can cover the head and is written several times along with the words shorn and shaven (KJV), which relate to hair. In other words, are we taking into account the context of the passage or over-focusing on a couple of words?
3. Third, is the doctrine timeless or meant to taken as a moment reserved for the culture of the time? This must also be established as the passage refers to the order of creation therefore it would be difficult to say it was only meant to be performed within Corinth at that time.
4. Fourth, if covering meant a hat or veil why would Paul ask us to judge if it would look right that woman pray without it, in 1st Cor. 11:13, similar to looking at a man with long hair naturally looks wrong in verse 14. Did Paul think that the average person looking upon a woman without a veil would innately think that something was missing on her head? Or are we misunderstanding the word covering, when he could be meaning that a woman ought to cover her head with long hair which would match up with verse 15?
Several things are up for debate but there must be some logic in the passage for us to at least lean towards what it is really trying to say.
I hope you still will get your answer and I am here to read it with you. I pray for protection against the one that wants to kill steal and destroy. Stand strong sister ❤ seek Him and He will answer. I will seek Him with you about this!
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
What's the name of this denomination, please
33:00 You admit that Pual calls the covering of the woman a περιβόλαιον, but forget the fact that Paul defines the hair TO BE the περιβόλαιον. In other words, it is not LONG hair that is the περιβόλαιον, but the natural uncut hair that is given to the woman.
I would like you to reconcile the idea of glory. Paul uses the idea of glory in reference to God, Man, and the Woman. Paul makes it clear that the hair of a woman's head is HER glory.
Olive Tree Ministries The best way is to check the early church fathers how they understood the Greek. They lived much closer than us. I'd recommend Tertullian from 200AD. His writing Veiling the Virgins may help you.
You may also start your study here:
headcoverings.org/book-chapters/chapter04-what-early-christians-believed-about-the-head-covering/
@Sa. Hayes I saw someone say yes, the women need no covering because her hair comes down fow and cover her that is enough no cloth needed. Wonder if they know ours in Africa don't flow down in their natural form.
@Sa. Hayes hmk, I don't mean it apply when u hve long hair. I mean to indicate that it is not about the length of hair. Whether there is long hair or not. Now, those who defend the hair is a covering say, the hair is enough as it flows down and cover. Now I mean our hair don't flow down.
I am for cevering, I cover my head, incase my explanation above isnt clear.
@Sa. Hayes I do cover daily, there is something you have by that, can't explain, protection, cover can't put it in word. when you start to obey, God will lead you on. It is not easy at the beggining. But obey and God will open the doors for understanding. Think about Abraham, that is what came to mind when I type this to you. He had to take his only son for a sacrifice, I don't blv he understood everything, but he did because, he believed and feared God enough to obey the hard command. It is a sacrifice. In a society of today, covering is not easy, you seen as if someone lacking in thoughts, but it is well. All I encourage you to do is START, if you have the conviction.
@@VaradiAttila those writings were altered
If the woman's "long hair" is given as a covering (beautiful-cloth?) (to cover wholly, a mantle, veil), is this some indecation that this covers her head and neck? And if there is to be a cloth over this, is it needing to cover all her long-hair-glory (a mantle, veil), or just to be a visitable addition? Is verses 9 and 10 "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head", just saying that she needs to be under her husband's authority. This headship was first declared in Gen. 3.16 ..."and he shall rule over thee", after Eve was deceived by the serpent/Satan/fallen-angel.
I wear a head covering all the time. It is my opinion at least, that a head covering is used to cover the hair, hence if one was to wear it, it should cover the whole head/hair. Otherwise, what would be the point of wearing a head covering, if almost all the hair is showing anyway. Each to their own though. Not all of us are convicted to wear the head covering anyway.
@@torahwifeministries ............
1 Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If she has no covering while assembling, or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God.
If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut his off each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
26:43 tautology "a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words." You said something a little different...
That's not quite what a tautology is either. The dictionary says it's "An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false..." But both the pastor and you give additional insight in how to recognize an tautology. For example, the phrase "Survival of the fittest," is such a statement because it says nothing of consequence; clearly those who are fit are most likely to survive and those who survive are likely the most fit.
Why can't you make sense of verse 6 if you were looking at the Covering of her head to be her hair? And that it only makes sense if you look at Covered to be a piece of material? Why does Paul then say to Totally Cut Off the Hair if you don't Cover your head? Why is he bringing attention to the hair? It makes total sense to look at this the way it was intended and that is, If the woman is going to have Short hair like a man, uncovered, then the woman mine as well Cut it all off, like a sheep or to the bare skin. If this is Shameful for you (the woman) then Keep your Hair Long and not like a Mans. Paul goes on to explain the reasoning why by explaining the order of creation of the man and woman. Again, this makes perfect sense
Please, what's this man's name?
In first Corinthians 14:28 the tongues speaker is to be silent if there is not an interpreter. Obviously that’s a limited silence because in verse 26 we are told that when we come together we can have a psalm, a teaching, a tongue, a revelation, and interpretation. The tongues speaker may not be able to speak in tongues if there is no interpreter but he still can speak. So verse 28 is only speaking about a limited silence.
Likewise could not the women being told to be silent in first Corinthians 14:34 be a limited silence? Can she not still pray and prophesy in church and bring forth a tongue, and interpretation, a revelation and even a teaching. So long as she is not usurping authority over a man or being disruptive and asking questions in the assembly.
So what's this gentleman's view? Does he agree with both 1 Tim and 1 Cor?
We would believe that the Bible is not in opposition to itself. If you could give a little more clarity as to what you are talking about, we can more specifically address your question.
Is this channel church of latter day saints?
This is an opinion that I hold, head coverings and telling people what they can and can't wear is legalism, people get so caught up with this that they form guilt and worry if they are not adhering to the rules and really what does it ultimately have to do with freedom in Jesus?
The problem is deeper in that many have accepted the teachings of ancient doctrines instead of letting the Word of God teach for itself. The covering is the long hair as so noted in 1st Cor. 11:15. But some avoid this verse and find ways to confuse the masses by saying one ought to read the Greek as though God in his wisdom mistakenly allowed the wrong word to be used in the English translation.
Fortunately, only a few sects adhere to this legalism. People will follow dreams, so-called church history, the anger they have towards the feminist movement (which is bad) instead of the simplicity of the Bible. The covering the Bible refers to is hair, specifically long hair that women ought to have. Instead, they have allowed this blindness to create a whole new doctrine that the Bible does not mention, with additional rules that cannot be substantiated as to when to wear it, how to wear it, there are some that even give actual dimensions, the color, etc. None of which is in the Scriptures.
Well then, I guess the Apostle Paul must have been a legalist. But I'm sure that's better than being an illegalist.
If the first part of Corinthians is in the context of everyday life, as opposed to church meetings, wouldn't that mean men should never cover their heads? Even work uniforms?
I agree with you sister. Paul specifically state in the verse 5 of chapter 11 that the covering should be done by women when praying or prophesying
it also says men ought not to cover there head
@@emmanuelnelson3108 correct
@@thekingdomchristians9910 yes, while praying and prophesying. It however does not suggest that if a man wears a head, he commits a horrible sin. We need to be careful. This Anabaptist movement has its confusion. Christians are not supposed to be just meek and accepting. The Old and New Testament do not contradict. Read closer in the OT, and you will see that even there divorce was condemned. And while I would suggest not to join the militairy, patriotism is of God. Paul also said we need to obey the laws of the government that AGREE with God's law - Romans 13. "Christian anarchism" - which people like Bercot and Boyd actually affirm - is heretical. Even though I agree with them on religious doctrines such as the nature of man.
How I understand it, that men should not have their heads covered while praying.
It’s not hard to find women who are called prophets in the Old Testament: Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:6), and Huldah (2 Kings 22:15).
21:33 Hair or Veil? Great teaching!
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That they are wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil.
If there where only two exclusive moments then one should have no problem if an “unveiled” woman speaks in tongues, interprets tongues, heals the sick, casts out devils, etc., right? Following such logic it stands to reason that the other instances that I mentioned should be acceptable WITHOUT a veil, right? Now should they say NO, then they should admit that there may be more instances; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, to be false. Please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that EXPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. People ASSUME this because they are misreading scripture.
So what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in long hair.
Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real life scenario. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Did people really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? I am not saying this to be funny, but people have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved. Given that this comparison seems illogical one should consider that someone may be reading it wrong. For if “uncovered” means “short hair” then it fits the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair) then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved, since it is already short.
So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven than to being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman is somehow equal to being shaved. Please don’t dismiss this logic think about it for a minute.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women as well as headship. Bit as far as the physical head is concerned the question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say all of the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered."
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering."
If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation. If we are to make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them without having to start studying Greek.
* You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking….
If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to:
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up into the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying? Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Someone needs to explain this logically. Again, don’t dismiss this think about it.
Be honest, does looking at a woman doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying, that would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong by OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (aka short hair) while praying and a man having long hair. I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head “COVERED” in this verse refers to “LONG HAIR.”
I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is being exclusive to two actions instead of seeing them as two examples. As stated before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off, ESPECIALLY in this verse, as it offers no examples or “supposed” exclusive conditions. In this instance it is to be understood that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. Keep in mind that short hair is NOT the same as being shaved. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
Unfortunately, people tend to get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seem like some kind of headwear but do not consider all the verses that show that “covering” means long hair and that “uncovered” is to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Is it wrong for a man to pray with a motorcycle helmet on while he’s riding?
Yes!
Don't do it! You disrespect and dishonour your head, which is Christ!
"I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head".
1 Cor 11:3-4 (ASV)
No
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 too late. I’ve prayed plenty while riding.
If we are told to pray, " unceasingly" I believe that the " prayer " being spoken of here, is public and in the context of a group meeting.
Please wear your helmet and pray constantly. 🙏
@@godsgrace7774 How can that even be possible? God told the priests and the high priest to have a turban in their heads when serving in the Temple. Were they dishonouring God by doing so? And if someone is riding a motocicle and an accident is about to happen, can't they say a prayer for God to help?
The issue at Corinth was not whether long or short hair was an acceptable
covering, but whether or not the head was covered with a veil or hat. This
is proven by the following:
----"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth
his head" (v. 4). The distinction here is obviously not between short and
long-haired brethren, but rather between men with covered and uncovered
heads.
Contentious sisters were provided with an alter native: either cover the
head or be shorn or shaven ( v. 6). But if long hair were the intended
covering, then the Apostle's alternative is meaningless.
"Cover" ( -ed, -ing) in the A.V. disguises the fact that different words for
"to cover" are used in the Greek text.
The distinction between two of these, "katakalupto" and "peribolaion" proves
that a veil or head covering, and not long hair is intended. These words are
as follows:
"Katakalupto" ( 'kata' = 'fully'; 'kalupto' = 'to cover up'), "to cover
fully" ( Yg). This word occurs through out verses 5- 13 and is translated
"veil" in the R.S.V.; Nestle and Marshall's "Interlinear Greek-English New
Testament'' and many other versions.
These translations make it plain that the issue relates to a head covering,
not the growth of hair, long or short.
"Peribolaion" ('peri' = 'around'; 'ballo' = 'to throw, cast'), "something
cast around" ( Y g). The long hair of a woman is her glory - like a mantle
cast around ( v. 15) .(8) But this is not to be displayed in the assembly of
believers before the presence of God. The intended covering in the ecclesial
meeting is the "katakalupto" ---- the head covering or veil.
When Paul refers to the long hair given to the woman as her glory, he is
drawing a parallel with what "nature" or common-sense suggests.
This can be seen from the following:
MAN long hair is degrading.
WOMAN long hair is her glory.
Therefore. a parallel is evident [natural] with the spiritual a man ought
not to cover his head a woman ought to cover her head.
4. The mistaken interpretation (9) evident in the question results from
reading verse 15 as if it were the conclusion of the argument rather than an
additional appeal to common-sense by a parallel: what "nature itself
teaches.".
The priests prayed with head coverings on. Exodus 28, Ezekiel 44, etc. So you would say they dishonored their head?
@@nattybumppo4151 That always comes to my mind when I read 1 Corinthians 11. It is so strange that Paul would say such a thing knowing what God commanded to the priests. I always wonder if this was wrongly translated or even corrupted by man in the translation. Unless Paul is talking about men using a feminine veil it doesn't make sense. In Jewish culture men always covered their heads with a tallit when praying.
@@YiskahBatYerushalayim We only have 1 side of the conversation. Would be nice to have the Corinthians side!
New International Version
What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up why does one never see this....
Exactly! that is why I prefer home fellowship or small groups that I have attended where this passage is applied. Everyone has something to bring to the fellowship instead of being just a spectator. We the body of believer are the church.
"The majority of Biblical scholars have held that "verses 4-7 refer to a
literal veil or covering of cloth" for "praying and prophesying" and
verse 15 to refer to long hair of a woman for modesty.[4]
Although the
head covering was practiced by most Christian women until the latter
part of the 20th century,[5]
it is now a minority practice among
contemporary Christians in the West, though it continues to be the
normal practice in other parts of the world, such as Romania, Russia,
Ukraine, Ethiopia, India, Pakistan, and South Korea"
Read yourself rich folks at @t
@Jesus Is Lord
Quite correct!
"6 For if a woman will not wear [a head] covering, then she should cut off her hair too; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her head shorn or shaven, let her cover [her head].
7 For a man ought not to wear anything on his head [in church], for he is the image and [reflected] glory of God [ his function of government reflects the majesty of the divine Rule]; but woman is [the expression of] man's glory (majesty, preeminence).
8 For man was not [created] from woman, but woman from man;
9 Neither was man created on account of or for the benefit of woman, but woman on account of and for the benefit of man.
10 Therefore she should [be subject to his authority and should] have a covering on her head [as a token, a symbol, of her submission to authority, that she may show reverence as do] the angels [and not displease them]."
1 Corinthians 11:6-10 (AMPLIFIED BIBLE)
If women are to wear a covering when praying or prophesying, what about other times not praying?? For if it were the hair given as a covering then why state the setting of praying and prophesying? Given for her glory, not everyone elses! Look at how the world gets excited and how its set in a sensual tone. Commercials of hair shampoo, etc.
Women should put on a fabric covering!
@@autumngrace3135
Their choice if they are not praying.
Yes! they should wear a covering or have their head shaved.
Those who refuse are rebels and so become "Silly women laden with sin".
Along with those shamed women who refuse to obey the Lord's commandment for their silence in the church assemblies.
Thank you for these videos! How much of a woman's hair should be covered,? There is so much controversy over this.; as much as whether to cover at all or not.
Also, my argument in favor of a head covering for women is, if it's just her hair, then short hair covers as much of her actual head as long hair does.The rest just hangs down her back, and nowhere does it say to wear a covering over your back, besides your clothing. Christian women are exhorted not to have short hair, so this leaves out hair as the head covering.
@@doriesse824
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.)
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her...
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
My thoughts: post length 7 minutes, scriptures outside of Corinthians mostly
Essay by another: post length 7 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians
Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary.
@@user-iz8np3vv4i I HIGHLY suggest you watch all three of these videos, and stay away from corrupted Bible versions, which have added to/ taken from the Word of God.
Plus the fact that short hair covers as much of a woman's actual head as long hair does, so it is not the hair that is her covering for prayer, etc.
@@doriesse824 This next post deals with this
matter. It is by someone else. I can post my thoughts
later if requested.
@@doriesse824
* Where the problem usually begins… (I)
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil.
A typical question from those who are against hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot.
So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off.
Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being shaven than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Think about it.
* Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II)
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered."
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering."
If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic.
* You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III)
If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to:
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ”
I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
(originally posted by FA)
Very interested in your messages, are you Mennonite? I read a lot of Anabaptist stuff. I myself belong to a (Plymouth) Brethren group, (started by John Nelson Darby), . Are you evangelical? I am genuinely interested, not debating you brother.
Bless you brother.... beautifully explained.
you can research this name, Finny Kuruvilla. He and his wife came to their convictions from studying the Bible.
I much appreciate the fellowship I have had among the Brethren assemblies. I also have, by Bible study, gradually come to see some things not commonly taught by evangelical groups, but yet clear in Scripture--disciples as peacemakers (not war-makers); the disciples' life as as shared community (not merely a collection of individuals); and honoring God by applying seemingly minor things (head coverings, modesty of presentation, avoidance of extravagance). Now I gravitate toward others of like mind, believing all that is taught by Jesus and apostles, but not judging those who haven't done everything as we we would do.
Neither... Mennonite nor Evangelical. We are Christians who proclaim the Kingdom of God and seek to walk as Jesus walked
@@arttyree4504 Thank you for your answer, so basically similar to Bruderhoff type community, or anabaptist?
Why always Jesus covered his head while praying
Who said? Some paintings not even of Jesus but a artist imagination
Can you please explain how a woman who is not married and has short hair is subject to being "the glory of man". And how covering her short hair is covering her "glory".
This makes no sense to me!
@Mélissa Ndiaye I look forward to attending the marriage feast of the Lamb. Right now I am dead in Christ, who has made me righteous, and is making me holy, as I am led by the Spirit.
"We were buried with Christ through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we may live a new life, ...crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be done away with!... set free from sin, I have become a slave to righteousness! Romans 6: 4,6,18
"For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die, but if, by the Spirit, you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God" Romans 8:13&14.
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse.
If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God.
If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
I never loved head covering until I had a dream, that women should cover their heads in the presence of God with a headscarf 🧕 and it was shared to all women in church. That’s how I got the confirmation that women ought to cover their head in God’s presence.
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.)
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
-excerpt John 12
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
My thoughts: post length 7 minutes
Reply for post if desired. It includes scriptures and commentary.
I don't put my trust in dreams but in the clear word of God. I diligently researched this topic and came to the obvious conclusion and confirmation that women do not need to wear a head covering but that they ought to keep their head covered with long hair.
Within the realm of this misinterpretation, one can find that there exists an OBSESSION to speak about this topic incessantly. Evidence of this can easily be found online from various individuals who have made videos on head coverings. Many times it’s even the same person who makes more than one video on the subject. Going so far as to elevate it as though they were on some “mystical journey” or that there is some kind of “testimony” to share, even though there is no reason to regard it this way. Let me be clear, there is NO SCRIPTURAL reason to ever think that 1st Corinthians 11 propitiates this level of attention or “sacredness” towards coverings. Whether you think the head covering is a veil or hair the Bible does not give allowance to obsess or talk about this subject in such an extreme manner. Typically, proponents of wearing veils are those who will act somewhat cult-like by over-emphasizing it as though this were one of the most important topics of the entire Bible. Such people often repeatedly state in a very stubborn manner that they don’t care what others think and that they take any negativity as a badge of honor. They often refuse to listen to any biblical soundness because they are already convinced that what they are doing is right. In short, they basically close themselves off from any reasonable debate or discussion.
Such persons often mention how they FEEL that they are somehow CLOSER to God by SIMPLY WEARING A VEIL, which is akin to those who believe that an inanimate object holds some kind of power like a talisman. Such dedication is like unto Catholics who say the exact same things regarding a scapula, crucifix, rosary, or prayer card. For the most part, their unwavering attachment to this is based more on EMOTION rather than something biblical.
I’ve noted that many people who leave comments on RUclips videos on this topic repeatedly speak about how God or the Holy Ghost “convicted” them of wearing a veil. It’s never usually about how this or that verse convinced them, but rather some kind of spiritual or religious experience brought them to believe that they ought to wear a veil. This line of thinking can be very dangerous because if the experience does not line up with the Scriptures, then the alternative is an experience one is creating in their own mind or at worst something demonic in nature.
For those who create videos, it’s gotten so that some will constantly and needlessly point to this topic in any way, shape, or form, from why they wear it, to how to wear it, to how they feel about it or how it has affected others, and so on. With all due respect, this is truly ridiculous. It is evident that for some this has become a form of fanatical extremism. Not unlike those who repeatedly talk about the Sabbath like the Seventh-Day Adventists or any other religion that over-focuses on one area of the Bible.
Can you imagine that instead of focusing on the gospel they put more effort and concentration on something written briefly in one chapter of the whole Bible and on top of that misinterpreting it? The evidence is in the videos they make over and over on this ONE subject. This is a form of IDOLATRY. What’s even worse are those who claim that God TOLD them or LED them to put a hat, cap, or veil on their heads. If this is you, then I implore you to reconsider by reading the scriptures I have shared. It’s never too late to get it right.
"I never loved head covering until I had a dream...." Hmmm something doesn't look right here either.🤔
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter 🥰
Kieth Malcomson. / limerick city church..Also teaches on head coverings. He did a real good 3 or 4 pt. Study. Go check that out. He was extreamly thorough
I agree with everything you say but I think some of the arguments you make to prove your point are weak, like the man in 120ad (approx) having his head covered proves nothing and means nothing.
Do you have any teaching on earrings. Leviticus 19:28 Do not cut your bodies for the dead, and do not mark your skin with tattoos. I am the Lord.
The bible says not to Pierce your skin. Do you have any teachings
It says not to pierce your skin *for the dead*. As long as you're not doing that, you're good. Genesis 24:22 shows a nose ring being worn. Keep in mind, though, that there is no mention of piercings in the new testament. By all means, do some more research on this, but I wanted to help you start out a bit.
1 Timothy 2:9-10
the key is vers 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on head because of the angels.
the Angels can´t see into the heart/mind of people, because For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 1. Cor 2,11
and For not a word in my tongue, , lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether. Psalm 139,4
But They have a main intrest:
Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. 1. Peter 1,12
The Angels a special part of the Church or for the believer
Hebrews 1,13-14
This is an interesting take. I’ve never heard these teachings before. I will definitely consider and pray about them. I enjoyed learning these things.
But I can’t help but disagree that it’s a “sin” to not wear one. Choosing not to cover your head simply can’t be “rebellion or blasphemy” against God over a piece of fabric. In the end, it’s our heart and attitude that really matters on this topic. Any woman can cover her head and still be proud and immodest. And then the head covering just becomes a status symbol- not a heart change. I respect women that are humble and modest and peaceable, whether they wear a head covering or not.
So I am not against this idea - and God may yet convict me and change my mind. But calling out women who don’t is not my idea of grace.
Well that's it. ....I. ... Its not about you ..... Is it..... Its about what our Yahweh and Yeshua wants.... The. I. Is pride and arrogant..
What did God say? He said if you know to do something and don’t do it, it is sin for you. So, I think it’s very fair to call it sin.
If you are disobeying a command in the New Testament, with full knowledge of what that command means, then yes, you are sinning.
@@Floweroftheprairie2720 but I have one doubt as in 1 Cor 11 : 16
" But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. "
So that its not a debatable stuff and not at all a law naah??
As God ask us to follow some stuff strictly but here Paul the Apostle finishes the topic by its not a custom
@@Floweroftheprairie2720 it’s not a clear command nor is it sin. Read the end of Paul’s exhortation.
God would not make womens hair their glory if it were not for it to be a natural covering. I don’t think either are wrong. I think the issue would be of a women having short or bald hair and then should cover. Also covering seems to be a main issue regarding prayer and prophesying not daily living.
Our hair is our natural covering (glory) and the cloth covering is for praying and prophesying (power on our heads, because of the angels) and we are told to pray without ceasing. If our hair is already short, we can't cut it off. We cannot put on and take off our natural covering.
@@jeffrachelburkhalter3783
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God.
If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 Did you mean to reply to me?
@@jeffrachelburkhalter3783
If hair is short it can still be cut further by shaving it.
"6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or SHAVEN, let her be veiled.
7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man:
9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:
10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels".
1 Cor 11:5-10 (ASV)
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 I'm really not understanding your point. I believe a woman should cover her head when we are gathered together, so I don't know why you're commenting to me about this. Maybe you didn't read my first comment properly.
I find it astounding that what you are proposing is that the word of God is saying that women have to entirely cover their heads in shame like Haman or Mordecai, in everyday life, not just while praying or prophesying in public assembly. This does not sound like my Father in heaven.
Paul's letter was not an epistle, written to the whole early church, but was a letter written specifically to the church at Corinth, to address many issues in that specific group. He explains that the covering was a culture practiced to cover the "glory" of long hair, of women. If she didn't cover it she should cut it. Because it was her glory. Our glory should be God, not our appearance, flicking of hair and so forth.
There is motive which is not beneficial. Women focussing on beautiful hair are not directing glory to God; rather they are attracting the attention to themselves.
We need to seek to worship the Lord, and seek His Kingdom in all sincerity.
In our culture, most women have their hair cut. It is not their "glory". Rather Christ is her glory, if she is a disciple.
Why would a woman with short hair cover hair that is not her "glory"?
This seems like the "heart" of the gospel is lost, and religious observances are commanded.
For me i am a deep Christian in the church of Pentecost from Rwanda.
Many sister women in our church , they wear heading hair covering and if you were given a gift of holy spirit or if you are a prophet , you must wear head hair covering .
For example , i attended one year at University which is residing here in Rwanda, Girls from our church at college must wear head hair covering and all Girls are very comfartable because they were different students at school.
But for women and men are relationship with wear only watch on our body , not any cosmetics both women, girls and men , boys , if you do not do , you already mudt be dropped out of the church.
What i want to say " if your church has displine you should follow , i think that you should do based on the Holy Bible says
Yes, you bring up something that's important. This passage of scripture isn't an issue in most of the world, only in America and the West since the emergence of feminism.
In the same chapter that communion is come an ordinance, the head covering for daughters of Christ comes. Though one is followed by most Christianity and the other is highly rebelled against.
Either all the Bible is truth or none.
Either both are God ordained or both are not.
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Revelation 22:18-19 KJV
Come om now do we really a preacher to tell people why hijab or long hair tradition religion and vanity could be a reason
The teaching was going well until he said ,” I don’t know why Paul wrote verse 15”. He said it earlier , you can’t make a verse say what you want. Period.
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while
assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off.
So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head
when praying to God.
If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair
each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
I just started to think of how I behave and dress
Why did Jesus let a woman wash his feet with her hair? Someone explain this to me? The woman literally worshiped God with her hair out..... And Jesus did not condemn her or request that she cover it. That's enough information for me to chalk up Paul's letters to situational codes of conduct .. which we should adopt in a way that considers our current church and situation
Who says she wasn’t also wearing a head covering?
Very good point. We can only go by what the Scriptures say and since head coverings were NEVER ever an issue we should naturally assume that she did not have a head covering. There is no reason to ASSUME she had one.
@@Tiabobia17 😂 what?
@@leonscott543 what what?
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter if head coverings were “never ever an issue” why is Paul having to address the “issue”? I don’t understand the clear wrongful condemnation of women who choose to wear one. We say it’s biblical you say otherwise. You won’t change our minds as we won’t change yours. No woman is shaming anyone for not wearing one. Like I’ve stated before, I’d rather wear one and be told later that I didn’t need to then told I needed to. I wear one for many reasons and that is just one. I don’t know why God told men to wear turbans yet. I’m still studying that and to be honest, I don’t really care. 🤷♀️
Mistranslation?
Probably but the likely issue is that it is a misinterpretation being passed along from certain sects who see the covering as a foreign object like a hat or veil instead of seeing the context where it repeatedly refers to hair.
Right
- Holiness is the underlying, foundational requirement & -topic of God the Father's whole nature -
Hair as a covering for women has the following meaning (for her face at times as she wants or chooses to cover her face, or her shoulders, or her chest as-&-when she wants - it is just the nature of a woman to use her hair in that way when she has long hair; it is designed by God like that FOR the women's comfort/security/exclusivity)
Covering when prophesying or praying is a cloth/fabric/hat as a woman chooses (as trained, submissive warrior by the Holy Spirit) or in obedience to the Holy Spirit, per occasion.
It is submitted that women who are sensitive to the Heavenly Friend and Comforter, the Holy Spirit, will not find it easy to pray or prophesy without a head covering(because the Holy Spirit wants to steer His female and male friends clear from dishonour), but if her conscience is trained/hardened to be self-willed and not be sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit regarding the small things like attire, dress code, and the like, she will embrace dishonour blindly regarding the small things...incurring inevitable/eventual dishonour on her HEAD, which is her husband/man. Such dishonoured husband/man will also be inclined towards dishonouring Christ and believe, "well, it is life - let's work through it". If someone says, "...,but I'm unmarried..." Well 1 Cor 11:11 makes it clear that once one is really in Christ, then such man is not without woman or such woman is not without man. Clearly not easy-thinking-matter for the intellect. Clearly solid spirit-food.
Dishonour is bad in its core, but that though, does not leave God without solution, because 1Cor15:43 shows that God clearly has a solution for something which has been sowed in dishonour.
The main topic of the head covering nudges towards this - honour vs dishonour. Quite amazing to hear very learned people always asking:"what is dishonour?" when prompted with the topic. Honour and dishonour is not easily understood by humans, since all honour belongs to God the Father. Once the human engages into pursuing honour in the intellect's way, such human always fails and ends up in dishonour. To avoid the one and embrace the other is not easy to understand for the intellect, or free will, but meant for the obedient born again spirit which is trained how to subdue the flesh and soul into obedience of the Holy Spirit's desires, on-the-go. The Holy Spirit understands the weight and nature of honour and dishonour, therefore he is the only one that can guide safely on those narrow ledges at His Holy Mountain.
It is noteworthy to mention that the devil's head is crushed easily by a woman who utilises the tool (head covering) in obedience to the Holy Spirit's prompting, at any given time.
Shalom.
Furthermore it can be advised to women - explore the Father's response to your actions by utilising the head covering only in the inner room/private time of prayer, therefore in secret. You will stand amazed!...if you do not become aware of it, pray that God will restore your sensitivity to the Holy Spirit again to the levels He desires it to be.
Now, you are talking of covering only when prophesying yet you talk about honouring. Does honouring come only when prophesying? The Bible says a should have a covering because of the angels. This means full time covering.
@@josephkirimi5453
Yes, as with the most 'obvious' things of walking after the Spirit and not the flesh, this topic of the woman's head is not to be exhausted easily. It is true that every truth which christians live after, is really infallible, so much, that an eternity was specifically designed to explore all the smallest truths... The Father is really a forward-thinker...the Good Father!😃
@@johannventer9759 To understand the word of God needs wisdom from the holy spirit of God. Another plain truth is that, not everyone who reads the the Bible or believes he is a Christian is actually one. A christian has a mind of Christ and obeys his word without trying to change it or seem to explain it better than Christ did. Christ explained the meaning of parables, otherwise everything else is clear.
Moses put vail on his face when the congregation afraid of God's glory that shone through Moses' face.
Exodus 34:30 (KJV) "And when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone; and they were afraid to come nigh him."
Exodus 34:33-34 (KJV) "And till Moses had done speaking with them, he put a vail on his face.
But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out. And he came out, and spake unto the children of Israel that which he was commanded."
Moses did that because the congregation afraid of God's glory which shone through Moses's face.
But when he went before God, he took the veil off.
Moses did exactly what Paul said in his letter:
1 Corinthians 11:4 (KJV) "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head."
"But when Moses went in before the LORD to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he came out."
Moses praying in the present of God without covering his face/head.
From that we know that actually Moses' face/head shone the glory of God and he didn't wear veil when he went before God, but it was the congregation's fear that "forced" him to put a veil on his face.
But we believers of Christ are not afraid of God's Glory because Jesus made us confident to go in the present of God.
Hebrews 4:16 (KJV) "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."
That's why we, men don't use veil on our head because the glory of God shine through our head.
And women should wear veil because they shine the glory of men.
1 Corinthians 11:7 (KJV) "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."
Because only the glory of God that can shine among the congregation, not the glory of man, so the women musn't shine the glory of man.
To do so, women should wear veil whenever praying to God.
Is it hair or cloth? Did Moses use his hair or cloth?
If Moses did wear cloth one, so the meaning of veil should be a cloth veil.
There's a further scripture that refers to that changing purpose ,yes it was initially to cover the brilliance of Gods splendored glory shining upon his face,but when that brilliance began to fade scripture states the covering was so they would not see it fading and references the veil upon the Jews heart none the less
Read
2corinthians 3:12-14 specifically but ide suggest reading the entire passage
I thought that women too bore the image of God as well
No way, bro....it says in 1 Corinthians 11:6 that if she is going to cut her hair she might as well shave it. It says it is a shame for her to be shaven. What Paul is saying here is uncut long hair is not a shame but if she cuts it she might as well shave it. meaning don't trim it a little bit not even at all-let it grow naturally. He's saying don't put scissors to your hair women. Men put scissors to your hair. In today's culture women cut their hair, women of God's image don't. And if you wear some fabric over your head what do you say about braided hair...it says not to braid it ...so look how crazy you sound having hair braided under a cover. Women don't braid their hair to not have it be seen by others. They braid it so it CAN BE SEEN. How could others even see the braid if they covered it by your so called 2nd covering of fabric. See I Timothy 2:9. The BIBLE clearly says BUT IF A WOMAN HAVE LONG HAIR (UNCUT) IT IS A GLORY TO HER: FOR HER HAIR IS GIVEN HER FOR A COVERING. 1 CORINTHIANS 11:15.
Couldn't one just cover their heads
when praying?
Or just accept the fact that long hair is the covering v 15.
Deborah
Wrong. Long hair is the covering. This is why men shouldn’t have long hair… because they ought not cover their head. Even nature itself teaches that it’s a shame for a man to have long hair covering his head.
It’s so strange the lengths people go to in order to ignore the plain Word.
The Word nowhere says it’s to cover her glory. Her glory is the symbol on her head… which is long hair.
A consistent application of that idea would be that a man must be bald.
Huldah in the Old Testament
If a woman refuses to cover her head before praying, then her head must be shaved. That is how serious a matter this is before Almighty God.
6" If a woman does not wear a veil, let her also cut off her hair; now if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her be veiled.
7 A man, indeed, ought not to have his head veiled, for he is an image and glory of God; but woman is a glory of man.
8 For it is not man who was made from woman, but woman was made from man.
9 And man was not created for woman, but woman for man.
10 For this reason the woman ought to have authority over her head, because of her guardian angels."
1 Corinthians 11:6-10 (MontgomeryNT)
With due respect, you forgot to mention verses 11-16. That is a part of the context as well.
@@amandaparrish9128....... ..1 Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If she has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God.
If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut his off each time before prayers, or of course be bald........{;o;}
What version is Montgomery NT made by?
Men believers do not wear hats whether in the church or outside.
Culturally men have been covering their heads all the time whether praying or in their daily lives. Paul would have done the same. The priests in the Temple were commanded by God to minister with turbans in their heads. All this is way out of wack, starting with the words spoken by Paul. I don't believe that would have been Paul's words. It would be going against God's Word.
@@YiskahBatYerushalayim It's one of the laws that Christ did away with. What Paul taught, he said he received from Christ, so this is the faith of Christ. The Levite priesthood used turbans but today Christ is the the high priest who is not a Levite but a Judah.
The new birth and Complete honesty before God and humility will make it easy to obey the bible , and use the veil.
If Jesus Christ was our example of "glad submission", then women in turn would be following "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God", with their main focus being the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.
Jesus clarifies that our attitude is not to seek our own good, but the good of others. Not to distract others from worshipping God. Here, motive and resultant action is key. Everything Jesus said was not religious, but had meaning, with motive emphasised.
If we follow God blindly, without comprehending that He wants to lead our Iives intimately, in relationship, we are just keeping up appearances. Jesus spoke against this! We would be compelled to believe that bread is flesh, wine is blood, and we must practice cannibalism!
I am careful not to follow decrees based on empty reason, without the teaching of the Spirit.
It is those who are led by the Spirit who are the sons on God, Romans 8:14.
Hey women's attire is easy. Dress like women to in devout Muslim areas. Now men, the same way but I never hear the FOTW men ever talk about how us men should dress.
FOTW? flags of the world or what?
I would say
Jael ,it was the spirit of God leading her actions to kill the king the Hebrew women who would not abort or murder the babies at the command of Herod
Deborah I think as well Elizabeth with Mary
None of it
It’s but religious
Jesus Christ is the head covering
‘Let this mind be IN you AS it was IN Christ’
Jesus only said and did as was told and shown to Him by His Father - God thru Holy Spirit
God builds not the man
It’s by Him
To Him
For Him
Only ‘8’ were in the ark Noah built
like in the days of Noah so shall it be at the return of Christ with Sodom and Gomorrah once again
I recognize that photo of the girl with the head covering in the thumbnail. A girl on etsy who sells mennonite style head coverings used it. I wonder which one of you stole it. Either way, it's a sin as much as any other sin.
Not only that but to preach that the covering the Bible refers to is a veil is a false interpretation. We can include that also.
We are free to make reasonable use of information and photos if it's the public domain unless it's copyrighted and otherwise restricted. By the way, I'm very circumspect about using critical or damming speech against others, 1 Cor 6:9-10 calls such people verbal abusers, slanders or revilers and lists it as one of the sins that will keep us from the kingdom of Heaven.
Emmanuel never said to cover your body in prayer! People become religious fanatics and need to stop following other GOSPELS.
Just a reminder that this denomination is technically listed as a cult, so I would do some further research.
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God.
If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
What is this denomination?
Denominations and labels like "cult" are made up by men as tools of division for Gods people.
I'd be interested in what information you have on this. What is the denomination and who classifies it as a cult?
He lost me at John Piper
the head covering for a woman is her long hair - not a hat or scarf read 1st Cor. 11: 14-15.......so listen to no man who says you must cover your head
"For if a woman doesn’t cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her head be covered."
1 Corinthians 11:6
This verse would make no sense if Paul was just talking about hair all 15 passages. It would be saying, "if she does not have long hair then she should cut her hair short" which makes no sense. Her hair is given to her as a physical covering, and a veil is the spiritual symbol of authority covering.
The argument saying that culturally nobody understands this symbol anymore and that's why we don't practice it, holds more ground than twisting the Scriptures to say that it's just hair.
@@katiemurphy3601 .....Regarding head coverings - the command has a historical or cultural reason- unless you know the history you cannot explain the the reason for the command..it had to do with some women who dressed and acted like men but who also shaved their heads...while other women cut their hair in a man's style , so a cursory study of the passage will leave us all exegeting like fools...Corinth was a city with major problems as it was a sea port which was home for people from around the world and they all had different lifestyles and spiritual views. Read 2nd Peter 3: 16 for guidance reading Paul....just because you can't make sense of the verse that does not make your view right.
@@DavidKing-qd3sp
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse.
If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God.
If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
@@DavidKing-qd3sp
This is the reason women are to wear a veil/head covering, and why men are forbidden.
Nothing to do with any local culture, etc.
"The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
5 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head;
for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.
6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.
7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man".
1 Cor 11:3-7 (ASV)
AMEN!
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse.
If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying, then her hair should be cut off.
So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God.
If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse.
If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God.
If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
God's directions, for the head-covering, are explained in Deut. 6:8-9. It is for every child of God not just women or just men.
There is neither male nor female in Jesus.
Every child of God should cover their head with Jesus who is The Word.
Jesus is The Word, John 1:1-5
The Word God spoke: Exodus 20:1
The Word God wrote: Deuteronomy 4:13
and The Word God made flesh John 1:14. He is our example of The Trinity. He is The Law that hung on the cross and The Law that is written in the heart.
Psalms 40:7
Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me
Hebrews 10:7
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
With obedience to The Father in Deut. 6:8-9, The Father anoints us with His Word, putting us in His Son, The Holy Spirit.
Build up the body of Christ by 'putting on' The Lord. Cling to, dwell in the law (Ten Commandments) and testimony (Sermon on the Mount). We know His voice.
His words are spirit and they are life. Hear Him. Prepare for your future and the life of your loved ones. As Paul tells us, "put on Jesus."
Let's forget different religions and trust only in God.
❤💙❤
should we have a good conversation
there is nowhere written that Jesus did so can you place tell me
@@thekingdomchristians9910 Jesus was sinless according to even the Pharisees, with exception of keeping their traditions. That means Jesus kept The Law just as we should. Yes, that includes obeying Deut. 6:8-9. How else could He be a perfect offering unto the Lord?
@@godswarriors7543 oh yah that is true I like that what shows that we trust in him it's obeying his words
The bible says a woman should wear a head covering when she prays or prophesies not 24/7.
Well actually it doesn't say the word "wear" at least not in the KJV. It says the woman's head ought to be covered and the man's uncovered and given that much of the passages refer to hair so they are referring to long hair (covered) and short hair (uncovered). As we all know long hair covers the head, which applies in this instance. Much confusion is if there is really ONLY TWO instances being mentioned as opposed to being simply two examples. Note that only one (praying) is mentioned in verse 13. Why? because it was meant to be examples. If we say there are only two exclusive moments to supposedly wear something then one should not argue if a woman is "not covered" when talking in tongues, casting out devils, performing any other miracle, etc. Say this to most veil promoters and it is almost guaranteed that people would be against this. The idea behind these scriptures is that if a woman performs a holy act LIKE praying or LIKE prophesying and she is uncovered (meaning she is not covered in long hair) that it would not look right same thing for the man regarding a head covered in long hair (see verses 13 and 14),
They were never ever referring to a fabric veil, hat or anything else separate from the body.
We did not say anything otherwise
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter A woman has long hair by nature. So it cannot be the covering.
@@patrickhamilton7849 WOW verse 15 plainly states that God gave the woman long hair for a covering. How can you dare to say that a woman’s long hair (as God gave naturally to all women) cannot be a covering. Your words are in COMPLETE CONTRADICTION to the scriptures.😱
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter It is obvious that long hair is the covering. One has to disregard scripture to believe otherwise.
corinth 14 not saying women cant prophesy but questioning your husband loudly while church teaching sermons are going on interrupting services . , the apostles were fine with women preachers
Now, as far as head covering, the Bible doesn't specify what kind, right? So any hat would do? f you cover your head with something more culturally "acceptable, or normal" at least you'll be avoiding looking weird and you are covering your head...
I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering.
The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus.
I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long.
But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way…
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV
So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off.
So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15.
So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
My long hair is my covering.
“For her hair is given her for a covering”. This just sums it up. Uncut hair IS the covering ❤
@a basketboy If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That they are wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil.
If there where only two exclusive moments then one should have no problem if an “unveiled” woman speaks in tongues, interprets tongues, heals the sick, casts out devils, etc., right? Following such logic it stands to reason that the other instances that I mentioned should be acceptable WITHOUT a veil, right? Now should they say NO, then they should admit that there may be more instances; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, to be false. Please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that EXPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. People ASSUME this because they are misreading scripture.
So what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in long hair.
Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real life scenario. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Did people really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? I am not saying this to be funny, but people have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved. Given that this comparison seems illogical one should consider that someone may be reading it wrong. For if “uncovered” means “short hair” then it fits the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair) then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved, since it is already short.
So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven than to being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman is somehow equal to being shaved. Please don’t dismiss this logic think about it for a minute.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women as well as headship. Bit as far as the physical head is concerned the question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say all of the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered."
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering."
If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation. If we are to make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them without having to start studying Greek.
* You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking….
If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to:
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up into the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying? Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Someone needs to explain this logically. Again, don’t dismiss this think about it.
Be honest, does looking at a woman doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying, that would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong by OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (aka short hair) while praying and a man having long hair. I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding, we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head “COVERED” in this verse refers to “LONG HAIR.”
I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is being exclusive to two actions instead of seeing them as two examples. As stated before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off, ESPECIALLY in this verse, as it offers no examples or “supposed” exclusive conditions. In this instance it is to be understood that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. Keep in mind that short hair is NOT the same as being shaved. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
Unfortunately, people tend to get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seem like some kind of headwear but do not consider all the verses that show that “covering” means long hair and that “uncovered” is to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Because you say so does not make it truth.
@@patrickhamilton7849 TWO people quoted actual scriptures in this comment thread. I don’t see you making any effort to prove your point.