This is the best teaching on women’s uncut hair that I have ever heard and I’ve been trying to understand it and explain it to others for 44 years. I finally get it. Thank you!
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 7… “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
Thank you for teaching truth, no matter what men say. I have walked with God for over 50 years. My husband and I attended a UPC Bible College. We have attended our current church for over 40 years, and have witnessed the lack of this teaching (as well as other standards of holiness), and the effect on our church. Our Pastor allows people to hold positions in our church, who do not follow any outward standards of holiness. I feel sick in my spirit every time I go to church, because of what I see. We have been taught to be in subjection to our Pastor, so what recourse do we have when he no longer teaches or believes these precious truths?
Thankful for personal revelation concerning this topic❤! I have yet to hear this from the pulpit 😢 Elders are being shamed for sharing certain Holiness standards. My spiritual mama was shamed when she was excited about my personal revelations
Beautiful spirit within this teaching that has brought needed revelation to me. Thank you SO much!! God got my attention concerning hair a few weeks ago. Ive been praying and studying. Your teaching just answered many questions for me. My heart has been stirred to repentance for cutting my hair. Oh dear Jesus, I didn't understand. Thank you for being faithful to his word.
Shout out from Wisconsin! Kim Haney has a book called “Guarding the Channels of the Supernatural.” Lee Stoneking taught The Power of a Woman’s uncut hair. You taught a message called, “The Keepers of the Glory.” All have changed my life! 3 years ago after a year in my Apostolic church I received the gift of the Holy Ghost in my home with my newborn daughter in my arms. Went to get dressed, put on makeup, went to fix my hair same as usual and began to hear the voice of God in my own voice tell me the right way to live. So I knew it was real and was so hungry for the reasoning! The understanding from teachings like this and studying the scriptures has equipped me to love this truth and teach it to my children. My 1 year old and 3 year old girls love their glory. My 2 year old son knows his hair is to be cut and following that natural hair line. POWER IN THIS TEACHING, POWER IN THE JOHN THE BAPTIST MINISTRY! POWER IN JESUS NAME AND HIS TEACHING! God bless you and your church as you speak it like the Bible says!
I was in my bedroom folding laundry and my daughter was 2. She was taking a bath. Usually I was with her but she was doing so well by herself that I gave her a few minutes to play alone. I heard my voice say, go check on her. But I folded another piece of laundry thinking it was just me being cautious. Then I heard the voice again but with urgency and realized it was not my voice but the voice of God. As I walked into the bathroom she was about to fall asleep in the water. I have no doubt angels were with her. I reflected on that story of the woman with the daughter in the pool because I’d heard you say that in the keepers of the glory when I was searching for the reason for my uncut hair. It was then I felt the gravity of my decision to submit to God’s will and be a keeper of the glory!
Thank you so much Pastor Campatella for sharing truth after studying so much on your own. It is rich and precious to me. May God continue to bless your ministry! ❤️
6 days ago I had a conversation with my doctor about this and he asked me about my hair and why our church ladies don’t cut our hair. Thank you Jesus for open doors!!!🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
This was awesome! Thank you for the simple breakdown of the scriptures. I have taught “this” many times to ladies in my church in class setting and it’s powerful! Such power!
In the 41 years I've lived for God, I've never heard it taught this beautifully!! I haven't cut my hair tho so the biopsies and skin cancer surgeries have made it all frizzy and different lengths in areas but I stand firm. God bless!!
Wow! She has authority in the angelic realm....have never heard that in all my years raised in Truth. Powerful! Always love what this man of God has to say! Brother Campeltella, would love to hear you teach on how to overcome shame in our lives. I have done some research and bought books, but none by an Apostolic and they really don't give you clear direction on how to overcome it. Back when I was a child, parents would say to their children "shame on you". I know my parents never intended for that to become long term damage, but it did. God has brought this to my attention that I need to be healed of this. I do not cut or color my hair. This shame comes from childhood; things that were done to me.
Chester Wright does a shame seminar on Bible with the bishop RUclips channel that really helped me. There are several other apostolic seminars or teaching series on shame I don’t have the titles on me but they’re out there. God bless you in your journey, may you find complete healing from shame in Jesus name!
A young man at church needed a miracle and his mom pulled her hair down and as she wrapped her hair around his arm the power from her hair physically pushed us backwards! I believe the Lord allowed us to experience that to show us exactly what the Bible means. Ladies, we have super natural authority in our hair through obedience of the Word.
I have always loved all of your teachings Bro!! Your love for the pure Word of God and zeal is so encouraging ! Praying for you bro. Stay bold in Jesus name!!
Thank you Pastor Joe for saying how it is. I truly believe how God is raising up the spirit of John the Baptist(repentance) this end time. My pastor has been teaching and preaching this and holiness/separation more then ever. I’m so glad and proud for man who stand for truth(the word of God) no matter what.
Thank you for your teaching on men's facial hair which was brought forth in a recent message titled, "The Significance of Hair." I have seen a trend towards Apostolic men growing beards. I myself did some background study on what would be most pleasing to the Lord and I must say that I am in total agreement with what you are teaching!
If GOD created women to have long hair to be her glory ( beauty, feminine) why did He create men with facial hair? ( to make them masculine, manly? Or so they could shave daily and make razor companies rich?) In the apt words of one critic of this belief, “Why would God put hair on my face, and then send me to Hell for it?” What does the Bible say about beards? Old Testament Precedent Beards were common: The Bible specifically mentions that David (1 Samuel 21:14), Aaron (Psalm 133:2), Ezekiel (Ezekiel 5:1), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3) had beards (among others). Interestingly, Joseph followed the custom of the Egyptians of shaving (Genesis 41:14), and is not condemned for it. Joseph participated in the culture of his day in a way that did not disobey God’s commands (Joseph obviously lived in pre-Mosaic times). Beards were well maintained and trimmed: In Leviticus 19:27 (and again in Lev. 21:5) the Mosaic law forbids certain styles of beards: “Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.” Given the context, this was likely a reference to the pagan styles of the day, which were associated with idolatry. New Testament Evidence Did Jesus have a beard? The answer lies somewhere between “almost certainly” to beyond a doubt. In Isaiah 50:6, Isaiah tells the story of a captive who was slapped and whose beard was plucked out.“I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.” Many scholars think this prophecy is Messianic, though the passage doesn’t say that explicitly. If the passage is Messianic, then Jesus certainly had a beard. If it isn’t, the Bible doesn’t say. As a Jewish man, in light of all the Old Testament evidence he probably would have had a beard, but it depends on the degree to which the Greco-Roman culture (of being clean shaven) had influenced that.
@@LastTrump7Thank you for your comment. I believe Pastor Joe Campetella's Christian Life Broadcast, "Did Jesus Have Long Hair and a Beard," gives us clear evidence and a proper perspective on Isaiah 50:6.
@@grammye2917 if you can find me one scripture in the Bible that it is a sin for men to have a beard( longhair, two different things) I will mail you $1,000 $$$. ) you people take doctrines and traditions of men and make a denomination out of it. And far as whose name the Apostolic church baptized believers into it was the ONLY name whereby men must be saved. It was the name that the angels called Him. His mother called Him. The disciples called him. It was the Name they healed in, they cast devils out in and baptized in. The name was Yeshua? The LORD is salvation. Rename your denomination and baptize in the right name before you worry about a doctrine not in the Bible, actually the opposite.
What’s incredible is that myself and friends have been taking a deep dive into this subject distinction, separation covering rebellion submission, all of it, and this pops up on my feed I will be sending it far and wide two years ago. I saw a wave of something happening. I asked the Lord what am I seeing? months later He said the enemy is after apostolic identity and authority, I thank you for courage we’re going to need men valor in the last day!
Just to chime in… for the black women who have chosen to live this way, it is 100% possible for their (my hair) to grow well past our shoulders mid back even waist length and so on. There is extra care that does need to be taken in order for that to happen, but it is very possible and normal in some sub cultures. All Gods daughters can glorify God in this way regardless of ethnicity. ❤
The length doesn’t matter! Just uncut ❤. There are women who are not black that have straight hair texture that stops growing. It’s a genetic thing.. It has behind to do with length. Just not cutting it
Good thing it is not about having long hair or hair past a certain length, but on having uncut hair. There is no room for competition when the Lord asks that the hair of a woman remain uncut. If a woman's hair remains uncut then her hair is long, regardless of length.
Black women’s hair can and does grow past their shoulders. Mine sure was and also my daughter. I also have friends and know people that have had long hair past their shoulders and it wasn’t glued in. Ijs
I was going to comment this as well! I think people who aren't familiar with curly hair think it doesn't grow because it looks shorter than it actually is. The curls cause shrinkage.
Good thing it is not about having long hair or hair past a certain length, but on having uncut hair. There is no room for competition when the Lord asks that the hair of a woman remain uncut. If a woman's hair remains uncut then her hair is long, regardless of length.
I heard some women complain about having long hair. I have never complained about my long hair I seen it was what God wanted so I was willing to obey, jesus obeyed his father when he suffered on the cross so growing my hair long was a small matter I love Jesus so much I.ll do what he wants to be saved. ITS BETTER TO OBEY THEN TO SACREFICE.❤❤❤
@robertmiller812 Short hair is never mentioned either but is implied from the meaning from the phrase "uncovered/not covered" the Greek Lexicon definition is to "flow/run down"...the head/his head. But the woman is to have her head "covered/flow/run down
This was a good podcast episode. Certainly good to see you willing to approach unpopular topics of scripture. I would add that Genesis chapter 2 also belongs to this discussion. Particularly in relation to covering and image. Godspeed pastor.
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 sho rt 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.
Awesome teaching, it was your preaching "Keepers of the Glory" where God revealed uncut hair to me. Praise Jesus! Which app or website are you looking at Pastor? Don't believe it's Bible Hub, I like to have a variety of websites or Apps.
I have a question..what if a woman has always cut her hair but she has found this scripture and now she understands it, can she then choose to grow her hair without cutting it?
@ChrisitanLifeBroadcast. Bro. Campetella , could you please share what you are using for Greek and Hebrew Translation? I've been looking for a legitimate one for studying! Appreciate your ministry! God Bless!
I want to thank you so much for this truth and understanding, I have been in this truth for 8 1/2 years, and I’ve heard not to cut your hair, but I fell into the trap of deception and trimmed my dead ends, I have repented and hoping and praying that I am forgiven, and that God will still use me For his glory, I am ashamed that I did that but I really didn’t have true revelation on that and hair is always been something I have struggled with, I thought that I should be of the age of maturity, but I see I am not, I did not come to the Lord until I was 47 years old I am 55 now and I cannot even tell you how many times I have failed and dishonored our Lord since I have been walking with him. I am very ashamed and I am asking for your prayers. I love that the Lord allowed me to know his truth, and put me into a great apostolic church, he’s been absolutely incredible to me and I am so grateful it breaks my heart that I would ever go against any of his statutes or laws that protect my life . Thank you again.
Why do we say that Shorn is to cut any amount/ not a specific amount when the Bible gives us context for the word Shorn? The word Shorn in this scripture is the same word in two other scriptures 1) shearing sheep; when you shear a sheep you don’t cut just any amount, you remove all the wool leaving a very minimal amount behind. 2) It also references Acts 18:18 “And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.” My KJV reference Bible actually says ” had his hair cut off” in the margin. I’ve been told that “a cut is a cut it doesn’t matter where it’s being cut at on your head” and Shorn means to “cut, clip, or trim” which is one of many different MODERN day dictionary definitions. This definition is the standard used by Apostolics instead of using the Bible to provide context for this word. Shorn does indicate a specific amount- to cut the hair close.
Asking this same question, I have yet to receive an answer and believe that we won't. Since they are fully aware of these Scriptures you would think that they would explain this, especially when he is showing a study Bible, this would easily settle any questions. But , he doesn't,. Infact he doesn't even use it that much hmmmmmm, but uses a lot of questionable reasoning.
@@mikeeagan1307 Thats what I think as well unfortunately. I studied this to confirm what I had been taught for so long and was surprised when I was not seeing what they preach/teach. I believe if we are going to say the Bible says something anyone should be able to study it and see it for themselves. I took this to my Pastor and when I brought the reference to Acts 18:18 he told me he didn’t have an answer for me and to submit and not cut my hair. Ive had people tell me to listen to Lee Stonekings Holy Magic Hair and other sermons and they all just regurgitate what they’ve heard their whole life. I’d be curious to know how many of these pastors have actually studied this topic but continue to preach it.
@@tyranotbanks7156 Exactly...they really don't want you to study for yourself as the Scripture prompts us to do. They want you to listen to more preaching. Bro. Stoneking began preaching this back in 2007 and this Doctrine has spread and is being preached by many and has been improvised on, but also has been rejected by ,Dr. Daniel Segraves of the UPCI. Why is this still being preached? They cannot answer your questions so they just ignore you
@@mikeeagan1307 I definitely think when they can’t explain something they either say to submit to your pastors or direct you to sermons which I don’t appreciate because they should be able to explain it. Something my dad once said has always stuck with me he said he spoke to a pastor of a different denomination and asked a question about the oneness or speaking in tongues and instead of reaching for the Bible to address his question this pastor grabbed a book written by someone in that faith and he knew they couldn’t explain it with the Bible. When we say the Bible says something and we can’t use the Bible to prove it, that’s confusing. This has definitely shaken my faith but I know I believe Jesus is the only God, and I believe Acts 2:38 with the evidence of speaking in tongues that’s why I continue going to an apostolic church. I didn’t know that about Dr Daniel Segraves, I’ll have to look that up.
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 to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. 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 promoter 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 a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? 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. Again, 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 exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
God put Adam to sleep and removed a rib. Ribs are bones. Bones manufacture our blood. Lev. 17:11, the life of the flesh is in the blood. Adam called Eve, the mother of all living. Thank you for this segment.
I cannot find any historic information where there were issues on the hair with the corinthian women, are you able to guide us? I still believe a woman should not cut her hair and can prove it in the Bible, but want to find what was going on historically in the church during the time the letter where sent to corinth.
I could listen to a 4 hour podcast about this type of stuff. The only problem I have with anything being that long is this: am I reading my Bible longer than I'm letting words be spoken in my life. I know I have to be careful letting things that sound so full of God be a substitute for a relationship for Him. I guess what I'm saying is I love the 2 hour episodes, but maybe only that long 😂
Your definition of long hair in 15 is letting the hair grow and you do anything to it like cutting it in any way, that is stopping the hair from growing, correct? Now we know that it doesn't really stop, right? But anyhow..... That same definition should apply to the man in verse 14, all he has to do is do what you are saying that the woman shouldn't do, and that is, trim it, and now the man ceases to have long hair just like the woman shamefully did. By this explanation you are trying to bring out that a man must have short hair, well by what you said it didn't come out that way. Verse 4 explains the length of his hair, it is not to Cover his head. Cover here is translated, not to flow down!!! This is missed every time and thats why you struggle to explain veres 14 and 15. And a woman's hair is supposed to Cover her head, thus making her hair longer than a man's.
Actually women’s hair gets like that from hear damage, perms, the hair styles that are frequently used in the upci are DAMAGING TO OUR GLORY AND NOT TAKING CARE OF IT.
Using scripture only it is clear God is for men having beards. How many tens or hundreds of thousands of good, godly men have been turned away from Oneness truth because of this ridiculous "shave only" doctrine!
Much in this presentation is precious because the same is of & full of spiritual truth, but, that being said, I have to point out that the "Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him? But if a woman has long hair it is a glory unto her, for her hair is given her for a covering" simply is still speaking of the noticeable matter of that if a man grows his pate hair long he is making himself look like a woman, which action & result are against "nature" & thus an affront against the Creator, as are the actions & results of a woman cutting her hair & thus either, if the hair is cut short enough, making herself look more like a male, or, by merely trimming it any at all, though not short enough to be noticeable, leading towards disdaining the Creator's plan & order regarding the two genders. To say that it is baldness is a natural thing of "nature" that pertains only to male human beings & what Paul was talking about questionable, though, & for obvious reasons, such as that not only do all human males not go bald, but some human females do experience a trend towards baldness, too, correct? Correct. Far more concerning, though, is what is said at "47:30," for the Lord Jesus, the Spotless Lamb Who was sacrificed, had no physical deformity or sickness, & all His prophecy to His antagonists "Physician, heal thyself" meant is, "Since you were able to heal all manner of diseases, & do all sort of miracles, even raise the dead, go ahead & heal yourself of your afflictions of your arrest, your physical punishments of floggings, etc, & the resulting injuries, & your crucifixion on the cross." The thing about what the ex-angel now known as Satan did prior to his rebellion being related to what the obedient woman does in not cutting her hair & thus keeping the order of the Creator, & other remarks related to the same comparison, I need to, like a Berean, look into myself prayerfully & by the Spirit of the Lord Jesus. I am not one to just take things as being accurate & saying "Amen" to such when I have not processed the information myself & come to the conclusion that such & such is truth. But, again, the topic is greatly appreciated, & so necessary to be Biblically taught on & preached in our day, & there are particular truths & their facts that have been sorted through for us, both males & females, & for those of us with daughters &/or sons. Glory to Christ Jesus the Almighty for His blessed turths, & thanks to Bro. C for having stood up for the Biblical truth that males are to cut their pate hair & females are not to cut their pate hair any at all, at least not in typical course of life. (I say the latter qualifier because, of course, the parents of Samson, who was to be of the order of a Nazarite, were ordered not to cut his hair, & he, having picked up adherence to the restrictions himself for his role as a Nazarite, did not cut his hair -- albeit, & this not too long ago shown to me by the Spirit of the Lord Jesus, even Samson's hair was not just left to look like the long hair such as is generally noticeably on a female, but had his hair done in seven plaited formations (Strong's # 4253: machalaphah (makh-law-faw') -- "a plait (of hair)"), which not only made him not so easily misidentified as a female, but more easily identified as Samson the Nazarite -- rf. Number 6, especially verses 5 & 19; Judges 13, especially verse 5; 16:17-20. Additionally, there was a practiced ordered by the Almighty for a captive woman who an Israeli male is interested in as a wife to be shaved to ceremonially allow her to mourn her family & to be purged towards starting a new life as a wife of Jewish wife -- rf. Deuteronomy 21:10-14, especially verse 12. And then there is the matter of the Aaronic priesthood & the restrictions that God imposed on them regarding pate & also facial hair, at least a couple of which restrictions make it evident that, while male typically should cut their hair & did amongst the Jewish, cutting a male's hair to the point of baldness was too far to go as a usual thing, at least for the Aaronic priesthood -- rf. Leviticus 21:1 & 5; to all Israel, Leviticus 19:1-2 with verse 27.) So Christian males, cut your pate hair, & Christian females do not cut your pate hair.
It would be uncut but every woman does not have long hair. Some. Ethnic groups do not have long hair. I remember going to Zimbabwe to work with one of my colleagues and when she saw the university female students wearing wigs, she asked me why the women wear wigs. I told her it’s because they have very little hair which makes them look boyish. However, they are not trying to look boyish. There are millions of women have this issue. Sometimes when I hear this being taught there is no drill down to the practicality.
This is so untrue. There are plenty of African women with long hair. Please do not spread this false narrative that is prevalent in UPCI and they don’t look boyish. They look like women.
Good thing it is not about having long hair or hair past a certain length, but on having uncut hair. There is no room for competition when the Lord asks that the hair of a woman remain uncut. If a woman's hair remains uncut then her hair is long, regardless of length.
It seems when you were giving the definition of shorn, it went from being like a sheep (as the Biblical translation is) for the hair to be cut off leaving a stubble. To what is being explained as, cutting any amount of hair. How is that? Either you are shearing the sheep or not. Shoring is not getting a trim. Why didn't you go to Strongs for the definition of shorn like you did for the Word shame? It would of brought out, "to shear,like as a sheep".
What Bro. Haney said would still apply. When you shear sheep, you are not shaving… you are only cutting off some/part of their hair. So, the verse is saying, whether you cut some or you shave it all, to God it’s all the same… bald and shameful. At the Time Paul wrote this they were using SCISSORS to “Shear” sheep. They have some of these first century Scissors in the Jerusalem museum. They were made like tongs with blades at the ends facing each other and used the same way we use scissors today. If you type “shears” in google, nothing but scissors will show.
@user-cr1oy2wv6b I failed to see where his words would still apply. Shorn, by Biblical definition, is to cut the hair off like a sheep, leaving a stubble. (at shearing season). Paul had his hair shorn in Acts 18:18 (in conclusion of his Nazarite vow). Paul, writing, shorn, would definitely know the meaning and use of this word. This is definitely not meaning, trimming or just to cut. Sorry That understanding wouldn't even fit in the contextual reading. Go ahead and try... in your way since you insist that "not covered" means to have, cut or trimmed hair. ... vs6. If the woman have "cut hair", let her also have her hair cut or shaven... No sense at all. You are missing the point/standard to go by in the very beginning in vs.4 ... "having his head Covered". Covered in this context, Strongs Lexicon, "flowed down from his head, like a veil". His hair is not to Cover his head. But now if the woman be not covered (vs6) and that simply means, "to have her hair to be like a man's (not running down her head), Then you mine as well be Shorn or Shaven".... since you are dishonorable to your husband anyway and not wanting to be considered his glory as God intended.... Pretty self explanatory if one stays within the context these first 16 verses
That makes zero sense for a man to have less hair is better lol. Just as naturally women’s hair will grow if we don’t cut it men will also have beards. Which is not biblical to nor have one. A lot of men also wear hats which is also damaging to their scalp and hair.
Your definition of Power, in verse 10, is not how you are trying to imply here. You can even check other translations of the use of Power here and its correct usage is; "ought to have a Symbol of Authority on her head" The women is not given any Power. She should, as Paul is explaining, since she is the Glory of the man and since she was created for the man she should have a Symbol of his Authority oh her head. Just as man is God's glory he should not be covered. No wonder the way you describe this verse is mind blowing, it doesn't follow the context.
This definition of the Greek word being used here is something you need to cross-reference. Never ONCE in the 103 times in the corresponding 93 verses is used in the New Testament to indicate a “symbol” of authority… Every single time it speaks of true authority and power… I find it very hard to believe that in EVERY OTHER verse that this word is used, it refers to usable, impacting power and authority but in this ONE verse it means something different. That’s a real stretch my friend. So… If anyone is taking the Greek and this passage out of it’s context it would be you. Take a look when you have the time. There is no mistaking that this power is that of actual spiritual power.
The 103 times in corresponding 93 verses you fail to see is used in 7 unique forms. And not every single time it speaks in Authority and Power as you are trying imply in your own statement. There are different types of Authority and it seems that the: NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB20, NASB95, LSB, ASV, YLT, DBY, NLT, BBE, and AMP translation, just to name few, have it wrong then, because its used as,"Symbol of Authority". Saying, as you do, that "Power" in vs.10, is Actual Spiritual Power is over doing it since these translations disagree. Even, Dr. Daniel Segraves, of the UPCI, writes in an article in 2008 about this translation of this use of Power in vs.10 and leans towards, "Symbol of Authority". I do realize a Preacher/Teacher, that one would look up to would play heavily on one's loyalty to believe and sway your understanding. If this message is true, then what Spiritual Powers does a woman have? Not one time in Scripture do you have an example of this special power given to women with uncut hair.
@@Tebbs31 Nothing to say to say to prove that all this incorrect? I would think there would be, if all that was taught was correct. One needs to do more study and research than trying to build on top of what someone else has spoken and someone that you trust to be correct.
@@mikeeagan1307 I worked from 8:30am-5:30pm and went straight to pre service music practice for service tonight at 6:30. I JUST got home 15 minutes ago… Some people are busy and can’t respond on your time table. I work 7:15am- 5:30pm tomorrow and my wife has ladies meeting from 6:30pm-8pm which leaves me with the kids. I will respond when I have adequate allotted time to invest on a properly tethered response. I’m not going to give you lazy retort. Bear with me…
So does that mean a woman can't pray at all unless she's covered ?? If that's the case all short haired women can't pray until their hair starts growing long .. So it means the clothe in the church .. Yes women need long hair as well not short but the covering is the vail because she is the spiritaul resprenstive of christ but the phyiscal respresentive of her husband and that's why she covers in church services only ! The uncut hair turns God into a hard task master because the would mean women hair has to go around looking horrible with split ends or so long you step on it etc.. and your turnin hair into another idol making it a spirtual covering .. Nothing in our flesh , be it hair , fingernails , teeth or anything can a covering outside of Jesus blood ! Nothing in our flesh or on our flesh is magical , Apostolic women have been indoctrinated to turn their hair into idols ! AGAIN , of course God wants short hair on men , long on women as a gender distinction and divine order physically but not a legalist never trim hair or maintanice it ! If trimming her hair meant she's uncovered then a man can wear his hair long as long as he trims it ! C'mon .. the vail is the church gathering covering NOT UNCUT HAIR .
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.
If you want to know what JESUS looked like and looks like. I would take Johns word over anybody’s and the written WORD. Revelation 1:9 12And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 14His HEAD AND HAIRS were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. 16And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength. 17And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. 19Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; 20The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. He don’t sound like a bald head man or a beardless one? Leviticus 21 The Priest 4But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself. 5They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh. II Samuel 2:4 4Wherefore Hanun took David's servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away. 5When they told it unto David, he sent to meet them, because the men were greatly ashamed: and the king said, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return. Isaiah 50:6 6I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting. Psalm 133 1{A Song of degrees of David.} Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! 2It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; 3As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.
If GOD created women to have long hair to be her glory ( beauty, feminine) why did He create men with facial hair? ( to make them masculine, manly? Or so they could shave daily and make razor companies rich?) In the apt words of one critic of this belief, “Why would God put hair on my face, and then send me to Hell for it?” What does the Bible say about beards? Old Testament Precedent Beards were common: The Bible specifically mentions that David (1 Samuel 21:14), Aaron (Psalm 133:2), Ezekiel (Ezekiel 5:1), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3) had beards (among others). Interestingly, Joseph followed the custom of the Egyptians of shaving (Genesis 41:14), and is not condemned for it. Joseph participated in the culture of his day in a way that did not disobey God’s commands (Joseph obviously lived in pre-Mosaic times). Beards were well maintained and trimmed: In Leviticus 19:27 (and again in Lev. 21:5) the Mosaic law forbids certain styles of beards: “Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.” Given the context, this was likely a reference to the pagan styles of the day, which were associated with idolatry. New Testament Evidence Did Jesus have a beard? The answer lies somewhere between “almost certainly” to beyond a doubt. In Isaiah 50:6, Isaiah tells the story of a captive who was slapped and whose beard was plucked out.“I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.” Many scholars think this prophecy is Messianic, though the passage doesn’t say that explicitly. If the passage is Messianic, then Jesus certainly had a beard. If it isn’t, the Bible doesn’t say. As a Jewish man, in light of all the Old Testament evidence he probably would have had a beard, but it depends on the degree to which the Greco-Roman culture (of being clean shaven) had influenced Jewish practice at that point.
So should short haired women not pray, unless they should shame their head? I’m concerned because you mentioned “black women’s hair doesn’t grow past their shoulders.” The Lord Jesus says to the Pharisees “you err because you know not the scriptures and you think in studying them, you’ll have eternal life.”
Good thing it is not about having long hair or hair past a certain length, but on having uncut hair. There is no room for competition when the Lord asks that the hair of a woman remain uncut. If a woman's hair remains uncut then her hair is long, regardless of length.
The womans covering in vs 5-6 is a Cloth Covering. If she doesn't wear that cloth covering when she prays or prophesies in the assembly, it would be a shame to her. Hair in vs 14-15 paul is making the argument about the natural side agree with this . And he said long hair, not uncut hair. Back to proof v6 is a cloth covering. If a woman be not covered. According to your idea, hair being covered, if the woman here is already uncovered, there would be nothing there to shave or shear, Correct ? By wearing the Cloth Covering is showing her submission to her husband, keeps her in the created order and in turn gives her power with the angels. How are we sure that this is a cloth covering and not hair ? Because it can be removed and put back on at will . This is where the Church for centuries told men to not to wear a hat in church. Paul states that the man is not to wear a covering in the assembly, and the woman is to wear a covering, when ? All the time, NO ! Only has to be obeyed while they pray, or prophesy, Correct ? So ladies, without a cloth covering over your hair, you have no power on your head because of angels and you are shaming your husband. Sorry Sir, you were were deceived by men that did not understand this chapter. I was taught and believed just like you until God opened my eyes to this . Many others have seen this also in our oneness churches. Preachers many yrs ago came up with the Uncut hair doctrine for 2 reasons. One is, they did not want to make the women wear a Cloth Covering for what it would look like . The other reason is because they felt like they couldn't trust the women. Yes Sir, they just knew, if we let them cut or trim a little off, they won't quit, and so if we make them believe they are going to hell if they cut it, we wont have to worry about it . Stonekings uncut Majic hair version was silliness. Making women believe they could rub their uncut hair on others for Healing ? Really ? Are you all that silly to believe that ? You are very wrong on this subject. You seem very nice and sincere, but sincerely wrong.
Very good Faithand food. Excellent teaching. So what Oneness Churches teach the true headcovering? I know various of the Black Churches do but am not aware of one.....predominately White Church.
I'm like you, I know of black Churches that do, but not any white churches unfortunately. Also I forgot to tell that Church History shows that after Paul made that decision, the women all wore Cloth Coverings in the Church for the next several hundred years . Amish and Mennonite women wear the outer Covering for this reason of Chapter 11 also .
Personally I stand fully with Oneness Pentecostals on Oneness and Acts 2:38. Beyond that I would say theres much truth to be restored INCLUDING the true headcovering.
I don't see where it says just to wear the covering when you're in church assembly, it says wear it when praying or prophesying so that can be anywhere. Also scripture says to pray without ceasing so I would think you would wear the covering all the time because we are constantly praying throughout the day wherever we are.
Yes, I agree it would be when praying anywhere, but I do believe as most scholars say, that Paul was talking about the Church and when they assemble. That's all I meant . When I pray anywhere, I take my hat off. If I would Prophesy, I would take my hat off first . I didn't mean only in an Assembly, sorry .
This is the best teaching on women’s uncut hair that I have ever heard and I’ve been trying to understand it and explain it to others for 44 years. I finally get it. Thank you!
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 7…
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue.
Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix.
“For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold.
This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband.
So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
Thank you for teaching truth, no matter what men say. I have walked with God for over 50 years. My husband and I attended a UPC Bible College. We have attended our current church for over 40 years, and have witnessed the lack of this teaching (as well as other standards of holiness), and the effect on our church. Our Pastor allows people to hold positions in our church, who do not follow any outward standards of holiness. I feel sick in my spirit every time I go to church, because of what I see. We have been taught to be in subjection to our Pastor, so what recourse do we have when he no longer teaches or believes these precious truths?
Thankful for personal revelation concerning this topic❤! I have yet to hear this from the pulpit 😢
Elders are being shamed for sharing certain Holiness standards. My spiritual mama was shamed when she was excited about my personal revelations
The Title of this podcast caught my eye. Thank you! Love all the information!
Beautiful spirit within this teaching that has brought needed revelation to me. Thank you SO much!! God got my attention concerning hair a few weeks ago. Ive been praying and studying. Your teaching just answered many questions for me. My heart has been stirred to repentance for cutting my hair. Oh dear Jesus, I didn't understand.
Thank you for being faithful to his word.
Shout out from Wisconsin! Kim Haney has a book called “Guarding the Channels of the Supernatural.” Lee Stoneking taught The Power of a Woman’s uncut hair. You taught a message called, “The Keepers of the Glory.” All have changed my life! 3 years ago after a year in my Apostolic church I received the gift of the Holy Ghost in my home with my newborn daughter in my arms. Went to get dressed, put on makeup, went to fix my hair same as usual and began to hear the voice of God in my own voice tell me the right way to live. So I knew it was real and was so hungry for the reasoning! The understanding from teachings like this and studying the scriptures has equipped me to love this truth and teach it to my children. My 1 year old and 3 year old girls love their glory. My 2 year old son knows his hair is to be cut and following that natural hair line. POWER IN THIS TEACHING, POWER IN THE JOHN THE BAPTIST MINISTRY! POWER IN JESUS NAME AND HIS TEACHING! God bless you and your church as you speak it like the Bible says!
I was in my bedroom folding laundry and my daughter was 2. She was taking a bath. Usually I was with her but she was doing so well by herself that I gave her a few minutes to play alone. I heard my voice say, go check on her. But I folded another piece of laundry thinking it was just me being cautious. Then I heard the voice again but with urgency and realized it was not my voice but the voice of God. As I walked into the bathroom she was about to fall asleep in the water. I have no doubt angels were with her. I reflected on that story of the woman with the daughter in the pool because I’d heard you say that in the keepers of the glory when I was searching for the reason for my uncut hair. It was then I felt the gravity of my decision to submit to God’s will and be a keeper of the glory!
Thank you so much Pastor Campatella for sharing truth after studying so much on your own. It is rich and precious to me. May God continue to bless your ministry! ❤️
Thank you for teaching on this brother. I am thankful for godly men and women who are not afraid to stand firm on Biblical principles.
6 days ago I had a conversation with my doctor about this and he asked me about my hair and why our church ladies don’t cut our hair. Thank you Jesus for open doors!!!🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
This was awesome! Thank you for the simple breakdown of the scriptures. I have taught “this” many times to ladies in my church in class setting and it’s powerful! Such power!
In the 41 years I've lived for God, I've never heard it taught this beautifully!! I haven't cut my hair tho so the biopsies and skin cancer surgeries have made it all frizzy and different lengths in areas but I stand firm. God bless!!
Impressed?
No cutting, no heat & no chemicals on my hair. Thank you Pastor!!
No heat???
like curling irons or hot rollers, that’s my conviction
This is so so so good! Thank you for sharing this!
Wow! She has authority in the angelic realm....have never heard that in all my years raised in Truth. Powerful! Always love what this man of God has to say! Brother Campeltella, would love to hear you teach on how to overcome shame in our lives. I have done some research and bought books, but none by an Apostolic and they really don't give you clear direction on how to overcome it. Back when I was a child, parents would say to their children "shame on you". I know my parents never intended for that to become long term damage, but it did. God has brought this to my attention that I need to be healed of this. I do not cut or color my hair. This shame comes from childhood; things that were done to me.
scruclips.net/p/PLLyXfXCTEseMxhBcdooHJnYHBtX6OXEeB&si=qdm_hmPWQhwDY8Mn
ruclips.net/p/PLLyXfXCTEsePgVzb-D5WXTQ3kFvuHvL0T&si=hCTTr9YHXOzx8WJh
Chester Wright does a shame seminar on Bible with the bishop RUclips channel that really helped me. There are several other apostolic seminars or teaching series on shame I don’t have the titles on me but they’re out there. God bless you in your journey, may you find complete healing from shame in Jesus name!
A young man at church needed a miracle and his mom pulled her hair down and as she wrapped her hair around his arm the power from her hair physically pushed us backwards! I believe the Lord allowed us to experience that to show us exactly what the Bible means. Ladies, we have super natural authority in our hair through obedience of the Word.
@@YouButterthat is witchcraft there is nothing in the Bible that would suggest doing such a thing.
Thank you Pastor for being bold! We need this! Glory to Jesus alone!
I have always loved all of your teachings Bro!! Your love for the pure Word of God and zeal is so encouraging ! Praying for you bro. Stay bold in Jesus name!!
Thank you brother for this teaching ❤. We all need to understand scripture as God says so.
Amen and Amen thanks for teaching the truths that are in God's Word!!!
Good, hearty teaching. Thank you!
Thank you Pastor Joe for saying how it is. I truly believe how God is raising up the spirit of John the Baptist(repentance) this end time. My pastor has been teaching and preaching this and holiness/separation more then ever. I’m so glad and proud for man who stand for truth(the word of God) no matter what.
This is a gr🎉eat lesson I like it😊
All the podcast segments, no matter the length, have been wonderful!
Thank you for your teaching on men's facial hair which was brought forth in a recent message titled, "The Significance of Hair." I have seen a trend towards Apostolic men growing beards. I myself did some background study on what would be most pleasing to the Lord and I must say that I am in total agreement with what you are teaching!
If GOD created women to have long hair to be her glory ( beauty, feminine) why did He create men with facial hair? ( to make them masculine, manly? Or so they could shave daily and make razor companies rich?)
In the apt words of one critic of this belief, “Why would God put hair on my face, and then send me to Hell for it?”
What does the Bible say about beards?
Old Testament Precedent
Beards were common: The Bible specifically mentions that David (1 Samuel 21:14), Aaron (Psalm 133:2), Ezekiel (Ezekiel 5:1), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3) had beards (among others). Interestingly, Joseph followed the custom of the Egyptians of shaving (Genesis 41:14), and is not condemned for it. Joseph participated in the culture of his day in a way that did not disobey God’s commands (Joseph obviously lived in pre-Mosaic times).
Beards were well maintained and trimmed: In Leviticus 19:27 (and again in Lev. 21:5) the Mosaic law forbids certain styles of beards: “Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.” Given the context, this was likely a reference to the pagan styles of the day, which were associated with idolatry.
New Testament Evidence
Did Jesus have a beard? The answer lies somewhere between “almost certainly” to beyond a doubt.
In Isaiah 50:6, Isaiah tells the story of a captive who was slapped and whose beard was plucked out.“I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.” Many scholars think this prophecy is Messianic, though the passage doesn’t say that explicitly. If the passage is Messianic, then Jesus certainly had a beard. If it isn’t, the Bible doesn’t say.
As a Jewish man, in light of all the Old Testament evidence he probably would have had a beard, but it depends on the degree to which the Greco-Roman culture (of being clean shaven) had influenced that.
@@LastTrump7Thank you for your comment. I believe Pastor Joe Campetella's Christian Life Broadcast, "Did Jesus Have Long Hair and a Beard," gives us clear evidence and a proper perspective on Isaiah 50:6.
@@grammye2917 if you can find me one scripture in the Bible that it is a sin for men to have a beard( longhair, two different things) I will mail you $1,000 $$$. ) you people take doctrines and traditions of men and make a denomination out of it. And far as whose name the Apostolic church baptized believers into it was the ONLY name whereby men must be saved. It was the name that the angels called Him. His mother called Him. The disciples called him. It was the Name they healed in, they cast devils out in and baptized in. The name was Yeshua? The LORD is salvation. Rename your denomination and baptize in the right name before you worry about a doctrine not in the Bible, actually the opposite.
What’s incredible is that myself and friends have been taking a deep dive into this subject distinction, separation covering rebellion submission, all of it, and this pops up on my feed I will be sending it far and wide two years ago. I saw a wave of something happening. I asked the Lord what am I seeing? months later He said the enemy is after apostolic identity and authority, I thank you for courage we’re going to need men valor in the last day!
AWESOME 💯💯
Just to chime in… for the black women who have chosen to live this way, it is 100% possible for their (my hair) to grow well past our shoulders mid back even waist length and so on.
There is extra care that does need to be taken in order for that to happen, but it is very possible and normal in some sub cultures. All Gods daughters can glorify God in this way regardless of ethnicity.
❤
The length doesn’t matter! Just uncut ❤. There are women who are not black that have straight hair texture that stops growing. It’s a genetic thing..
It has behind to do with length. Just not cutting it
Good thing it is not about having long hair or hair past a certain length, but on having uncut hair. There is no room for competition when the Lord asks that the hair of a woman remain uncut. If a woman's hair remains uncut then her hair is long, regardless of length.
thank you for this teaching
Thank you for this , I understand now why Paul taught this.
Awesome teaching, well done, stand on the truth 😊 🇦🇺
Praise The Lord Bro. Campetella! Glad to see you have a podcast🙌
Now I truly understand. Thank you & bless you for standing for truth.
Praise God 🙌🙌
Black women’s hair can and does grow past their shoulders. Mine sure was and also my daughter. I also have friends and know people that have had long hair past their shoulders and it wasn’t glued in. Ijs
I was going to comment this as well! I think people who aren't familiar with curly hair think it doesn't grow because it looks shorter than it actually is. The curls cause shrinkage.
Good thing it is not about having long hair or hair past a certain length, but on having uncut hair. There is no room for competition when the Lord asks that the hair of a woman remain uncut. If a woman's hair remains uncut then her hair is long, regardless of length.
@@JessicaSalamoneAmen
Wow!! Such a huge blessing hearing this! Been battling this issue for months and couldn’t fully grasp it and this was so informative
This is incredible!!! Thank you for this!!
❤. Thank you Brother
I heard some women complain about having long hair. I have never complained about my long hair I seen it was what God wanted so I was willing to obey, jesus obeyed his father when he suffered on the cross so growing my hair long was a small matter I love Jesus so much I.ll do what he wants to be saved. ITS BETTER TO OBEY THEN TO SACREFICE.❤❤❤
Love this Bro! I have binge watched every episode almost from California!
Please show me the word, "Uncut" in chapter 11.
Good catch. There is no such word but the idea of long hair and short hair is in play.
@robertmiller812 Short hair is never mentioned either but is implied from the meaning from the phrase "uncovered/not covered" the Greek Lexicon definition is to "flow/run down"...the head/his head. But the woman is to have her head "covered/flow/run down
Awesome teaching. The Apostolic Church also needs some instruction and clarification about what is proper grooming in the area of men's facial hair.
This was a good podcast episode. Certainly good to see you willing to approach unpopular topics of scripture. I would add that Genesis chapter 2 also belongs to this discussion. Particularly in relation to covering and image. Godspeed pastor.
Absolutely love this podcast. Keep it going!
Thank you so much. Bless you! From Rhode Island
Don't worry about time! Teach on! Teach on!
Thank you for this teaching. I will never cut my hair ❤
We're thankful this episode has blessed you!
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 sho
rt 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.
Awesome teaching, it was your preaching "Keepers of the Glory" where God revealed uncut hair to me. Praise Jesus!
Which app or website are you looking at Pastor? Don't believe it's Bible Hub, I like to have a variety of websites or Apps.
I have a question..what if a woman has always cut her hair but she has found this scripture and now she understands it, can she then choose to grow her hair without cutting it?
Yes she can, I can testify of this, once God revealed this to me, no scissor has touched my hair.
Yes and amen! Once His truth is revealed He will expect obedience!
@ChrisitanLifeBroadcast. Bro. Campetella , could you please share what you are using for Greek and Hebrew Translation? I've been looking for a legitimate one for studying! Appreciate your ministry! God Bless!
We use E-Sword!
Where have you been,Teach the Word
From- APOSTOLIC HOUSE OF PRAYER
SCOTTSBORO AL
❤️🙏🏼
Hi, GREAT TEACHING. Thank you! Can I ask what bible software are you using? Visible in the podcast. Thanks again. 🙏🏾
We use E-Sword!
I want to thank you so much for this truth and understanding, I have been in this truth for 8 1/2 years, and I’ve heard not to cut your hair, but I fell into the trap of deception and trimmed my dead ends, I have repented and hoping and praying that I am forgiven, and that God will still use me For his glory, I am ashamed that I did that but I really didn’t have true revelation on that and hair is always been something I have struggled with, I thought that I should be of the age of maturity, but I see I am not, I did not come to the Lord until I was 47 years old I am 55 now and I cannot even tell you how many times I have failed and dishonored our Lord since I have been walking with him. I am very ashamed and I am asking for your prayers. I love that the Lord allowed me to know his truth, and put me into a great apostolic church, he’s been absolutely incredible to me and I am so grateful it breaks my heart that I would ever go against any of his statutes or laws that protect my life . Thank you again.
So thankful that you have been blessed by this broadcast and that we serve a merciful and forgiving God! God bless!
What Bible Program/App are you using?
We use E-Sword in our broadcasts!
Thanks for such valuable revelations, question can your please tell me what app are you using, would like to get it❤
@
We use E-Sword!
Why do we say that Shorn is to cut any amount/ not a specific amount when the Bible gives us context for the word Shorn? The word Shorn in this scripture is the same word in two other scriptures 1) shearing sheep; when you shear a sheep you don’t cut just any amount, you remove all the wool leaving a very minimal amount behind. 2) It also references Acts 18:18 “And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.” My KJV reference Bible actually says ” had his hair cut off” in the margin.
I’ve been told that “a cut is a cut it doesn’t matter where it’s being cut at on your head” and Shorn means to “cut, clip, or trim” which is one of many different MODERN day dictionary definitions. This definition is the standard used by Apostolics instead of using the Bible to provide context for this word. Shorn does indicate a specific amount- to cut the hair close.
Asking this same question, I have yet to receive an answer and believe that we won't. Since they are fully aware of these Scriptures you would think that they would explain this, especially when he is showing a study Bible, this would easily settle any questions. But , he doesn't,. Infact he doesn't even use it that much hmmmmmm, but uses a lot of questionable reasoning.
@@mikeeagan1307 Thats what I think as well unfortunately. I studied this to confirm what I had been taught for so long and was surprised when I was not seeing what they preach/teach. I believe if we are going to say the Bible says something anyone should be able to study it and see it for themselves. I took this to my Pastor and when I brought the reference to Acts 18:18 he told me he didn’t have an answer for me and to submit and not cut my hair. Ive had people tell me to listen to Lee Stonekings Holy Magic Hair and other sermons and they all just regurgitate what they’ve heard their whole life. I’d be curious to know how many of these pastors have actually studied this topic but continue to preach it.
@@tyranotbanks7156 Exactly...they really don't want you to study for yourself as the Scripture prompts us to do. They want you to listen to more preaching. Bro. Stoneking began preaching this back in 2007 and this Doctrine has spread and is being preached by many and has been improvised on, but also has been rejected by ,Dr. Daniel Segraves of the UPCI. Why is this still being preached? They cannot answer your questions so they just ignore you
@@tyranotbanks7156 this makes you Question everything!!!
@@mikeeagan1307 I definitely think when they can’t explain something they either say to submit to your pastors or direct you to sermons which I don’t appreciate because they should be able to explain it. Something my dad once said has always stuck with me he said he spoke to a pastor of a different denomination and asked a question about the oneness or speaking in tongues and instead of reaching for the Bible to address his question this pastor grabbed a book written by someone in that faith and he knew they couldn’t explain it with the Bible.
When we say the Bible says something and we can’t use the Bible to prove it, that’s confusing.
This has definitely shaken my faith but I know I believe Jesus is the only God, and I believe Acts 2:38 with the evidence of speaking in tongues that’s why I continue going to an apostolic church. I didn’t know that about Dr Daniel Segraves, I’ll have to look that up.
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 to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. 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 promoter 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 a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? 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. Again, 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 exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
As a covering for men, it would likely be a Kippah, yarmulke, Yamaka…a brimless cap. Worn by Jewish men while praying. Women wore a veil
God put Adam to sleep and removed a rib. Ribs are bones. Bones manufacture our blood. Lev. 17:11, the life of the flesh is in the blood. Adam called Eve, the mother of all living. Thank you for this segment.
Thank you can you do make up ànd jewelry
I cannot find any historic information where there were issues on the hair with the corinthian women, are you able to guide us? I still believe a woman should not cut her hair and can prove it in the Bible, but want to find what was going on historically in the church during the time the letter where sent to corinth.
A check-up from the neck up ?
I could listen to a 4 hour podcast about this type of stuff. The only problem I have with anything being that long is this: am I reading my Bible longer than I'm letting words be spoken in my life. I know I have to be careful letting things that sound so full of God be a substitute for a relationship for Him.
I guess what I'm saying is I love the 2 hour episodes, but maybe only that long 😂
Your definition of long hair in 15 is letting the hair grow and you do anything to it like cutting it in any way, that is stopping the hair from growing, correct? Now we know that it doesn't really stop, right? But anyhow.....
That same definition should apply to the man in verse 14, all he has to do is do what you are saying that the woman shouldn't do, and that is, trim it, and now the man ceases to have long hair just like the woman shamefully did.
By this explanation you are trying to bring out that a man must have short hair, well by what you said it didn't come out that way. Verse 4 explains the length of his hair, it is not to Cover his head. Cover here is translated, not to flow down!!! This is missed every time and thats why you struggle to explain veres 14 and 15. And a woman's hair is supposed to Cover her head, thus making her hair longer than a man's.
Uncut final
Actually women’s hair gets like that from hear damage, perms, the hair styles that are frequently used in the upci are DAMAGING TO OUR GLORY AND NOT TAKING CARE OF IT.
Using scripture only it is clear God is for men having beards. How many tens or hundreds of thousands of good, godly men have been turned away from Oneness truth because of this ridiculous "shave only" doctrine!
Facial hair should be required, IMO
Much in this presentation is precious because the same is of & full of spiritual truth, but, that being said, I have to point out that the "Doth not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him? But if a woman has long hair it is a glory unto her, for her hair is given her for a covering" simply is still speaking of the noticeable matter of that if a man grows his pate hair long he is making himself look like a woman, which action & result are against "nature" & thus an affront against the Creator, as are the actions & results of a woman cutting her hair & thus either, if the hair is cut short enough, making herself look more like a male, or, by merely trimming it any at all, though not short enough to be noticeable, leading towards disdaining the Creator's plan & order regarding the two genders. To say that it is baldness is a natural thing of "nature" that pertains only to male human beings & what Paul was talking about questionable, though, & for obvious reasons, such as that not only do all human males not go bald, but some human females do experience a trend towards baldness, too, correct? Correct.
Far more concerning, though, is what is said at "47:30," for the Lord Jesus, the Spotless Lamb Who was sacrificed, had no physical deformity or sickness, & all His prophecy to His antagonists "Physician, heal thyself" meant is, "Since you were able to heal all manner of diseases, & do all sort of miracles, even raise the dead, go ahead & heal yourself of your afflictions of your arrest, your physical punishments of floggings, etc, & the resulting injuries, & your crucifixion on the cross."
The thing about what the ex-angel now known as Satan did prior to his rebellion being related to what the obedient woman does in not cutting her hair & thus keeping the order of the Creator, & other remarks related to the same comparison, I need to, like a Berean, look into myself prayerfully & by the Spirit of the Lord Jesus. I am not one to just take things as being accurate & saying "Amen" to such when I have not processed the information myself & come to the conclusion that such & such is truth.
But, again, the topic is greatly appreciated, & so necessary to be Biblically taught on & preached in our day, & there are particular truths & their facts that have been sorted through for us, both males & females, & for those of us with daughters &/or sons. Glory to Christ Jesus the Almighty for His blessed turths, & thanks to Bro. C for having stood up for the Biblical truth that males are to cut their pate hair & females are not to cut their pate hair any at all, at least not in typical course of life.
(I say the latter qualifier because, of course, the parents of Samson, who was to be of the order of a Nazarite, were ordered not to cut his hair, & he, having picked up adherence to the restrictions himself for his role as a Nazarite, did not cut his hair -- albeit, & this not too long ago shown to me by the Spirit of the Lord Jesus, even Samson's hair was not just left to look like the long hair such as is generally noticeably on a female, but had his hair done in seven plaited formations (Strong's # 4253: machalaphah (makh-law-faw') -- "a plait (of hair)"), which not only made him not so easily misidentified as a female, but more easily identified as Samson the Nazarite -- rf. Number 6, especially verses 5 & 19; Judges 13, especially verse 5; 16:17-20. Additionally, there was a practiced ordered by the Almighty for a captive woman who an Israeli male is interested in as a wife to be shaved to ceremonially allow her to mourn her family & to be purged towards starting a new life as a wife of Jewish wife -- rf. Deuteronomy 21:10-14, especially verse 12. And then there is the matter of the Aaronic priesthood & the restrictions that God imposed on them regarding pate & also facial hair, at least a couple of which restrictions make it evident that, while male typically should cut their hair & did amongst the Jewish, cutting a male's hair to the point of baldness was too far to go as a usual thing, at least for the Aaronic priesthood -- rf. Leviticus 21:1 & 5; to all Israel, Leviticus 19:1-2 with verse 27.)
So Christian males, cut your pate hair, & Christian females do not cut your pate hair.
It would be uncut but every woman does not have long hair. Some. Ethnic groups do not have long hair. I remember going to Zimbabwe to work with one of my colleagues and when she saw the university female students wearing wigs, she asked me why the women wear wigs. I told her it’s because they have very little hair which makes them look boyish. However, they are not trying to look boyish. There are millions of women have this issue. Sometimes when I hear this being taught there is no drill down to the practicality.
So thankful Pastor Campetella addresses different natural lengths that various ethnicities grow! Powerful and encouraging!!
This is so untrue. There are plenty of African women with long hair. Please do not spread this false narrative that is prevalent in UPCI and they don’t look boyish. They look like women.
Good thing it is not about having long hair or hair past a certain length, but on having uncut hair. There is no room for competition when the Lord asks that the hair of a woman remain uncut. If a woman's hair remains uncut then her hair is long, regardless of length.
It seems when you were giving the definition of shorn, it went from being like a sheep (as the Biblical translation is) for the hair to be cut off leaving a stubble. To what is being explained as, cutting any amount of hair. How is that? Either you are shearing the sheep or not. Shoring is not getting a trim. Why didn't you go to Strongs for the definition of shorn like you did for the Word shame? It would of brought out, "to shear,like as a sheep".
What Bro. Haney said would still apply. When you shear sheep, you are not shaving… you are only cutting off some/part of their hair. So, the verse is saying, whether you cut some or you shave it all, to God it’s all the same… bald and shameful.
At the Time Paul wrote this they were using SCISSORS to “Shear” sheep. They have some of these first century Scissors in the Jerusalem museum. They were made like tongs with blades at the ends facing each other and used the same way we use scissors today. If you type “shears” in google, nothing but scissors will show.
@user-cr1oy2wv6b I failed to see where his words would still apply. Shorn, by Biblical definition, is to cut the hair off like a sheep, leaving a stubble. (at shearing season). Paul had his hair shorn in Acts 18:18 (in conclusion of his Nazarite vow). Paul, writing, shorn, would definitely know the meaning and use of this word. This is definitely not meaning, trimming or just to cut. Sorry
That understanding wouldn't even fit in the contextual reading. Go ahead and try... in your way since you insist that "not covered" means to have, cut or trimmed hair.
... vs6. If the woman have "cut hair", let her also have her hair cut or shaven...
No sense at all. You are missing the point/standard to go by in the very beginning in vs.4 ... "having his head Covered". Covered in this context, Strongs Lexicon, "flowed down from his head, like a veil". His hair is not to Cover his head. But now if the woman be not covered (vs6) and that simply means, "to have her hair to be like a man's (not running down her head), Then you mine as well be Shorn or Shaven".... since you are dishonorable to your husband anyway and not wanting to be considered his glory as God intended.... Pretty self explanatory if one stays within the context these first 16 verses
That makes zero sense for a man to have less hair is better lol. Just as naturally women’s hair will grow if we don’t cut it men will also have beards. Which is not biblical to nor have one.
A lot of men also wear hats which is also damaging to their scalp and hair.
We shouldn’t give a five minute disclaimer before we say what the Lord sent us to say. Don’t apologize for the Word of God.
It's called Apologetics..😂
Your definition of Power, in verse 10, is not how you are trying to imply here. You can even check other translations of the use of Power here and its correct usage is; "ought to have a Symbol of Authority on her head" The women is not given any Power. She should, as Paul is explaining, since she is the Glory of the man and since she was created for the man she should have a Symbol of his Authority oh her head. Just as man is God's glory he should not be covered. No wonder the way you describe this verse is mind blowing, it doesn't follow the context.
This definition of the Greek word being used here is something you need to cross-reference. Never ONCE in the 103 times in the corresponding 93 verses is used in the New Testament to indicate a “symbol” of authority… Every single time it speaks of true authority and power…
I find it very hard to believe that in EVERY OTHER verse that this word is used, it refers to usable, impacting power and authority but in this ONE verse it means something different. That’s a real stretch my friend.
So… If anyone is taking the Greek and this passage out of it’s context it would be you. Take a look when you have the time. There is no mistaking that this power is that of actual spiritual power.
The 103 times in corresponding 93 verses you fail to see is used in 7 unique forms. And not every single time it speaks in Authority and Power as you are trying imply in your own statement. There are different types of Authority and it seems that the: NKJV, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB20, NASB95, LSB, ASV, YLT, DBY, NLT, BBE, and AMP translation, just to name few, have it wrong then, because its used as,"Symbol of Authority". Saying, as you do, that "Power" in vs.10, is Actual Spiritual Power is over doing it since these translations disagree. Even, Dr. Daniel Segraves, of the UPCI, writes in an article in 2008 about this translation of this use of Power in vs.10 and leans towards, "Symbol of Authority".
I do realize a Preacher/Teacher, that one would look up to would play heavily on one's loyalty to believe and sway your understanding. If this message is true, then what Spiritual Powers does a woman have? Not one time in Scripture do you have an example of this special power given to women with uncut hair.
@@Tebbs31 Nothing to say to say to prove that all this incorrect? I would think there would be, if all that was taught was correct. One needs to do more study and research than trying to build on top of what someone else has spoken and someone that you trust to be correct.
@@mikeeagan1307 I worked from 8:30am-5:30pm and went straight to pre service music practice for service tonight at 6:30. I JUST got home 15 minutes ago… Some people are busy and can’t respond on your time table. I work 7:15am- 5:30pm tomorrow and my wife has ladies meeting from 6:30pm-8pm which leaves me with the kids. I will respond when I have adequate allotted time to invest on a properly tethered response. I’m not going to give you lazy retort. Bear with me…
@@mikeeagan1307 I also don’t take kindly to underhanded assumptive comments about my personal studies or lack thereof…
So does that mean a woman can't pray at all unless she's covered ?? If that's the case all short haired women can't pray until their hair starts growing long .. So it means the clothe in the church .. Yes women need long hair as well not short but the covering is the vail because she is the spiritaul resprenstive of christ but the phyiscal respresentive of her husband and that's why she covers in church services only ! The uncut hair turns God into a hard task master because the would mean women hair has to go around looking horrible with split ends or so long you step on it etc.. and your turnin hair into another idol making it a spirtual covering .. Nothing in our flesh , be it hair , fingernails , teeth or anything can a covering outside of Jesus blood ! Nothing in our flesh or on our flesh is magical , Apostolic women have been indoctrinated to turn their hair into idols ! AGAIN , of course God wants short hair on men , long on women as a gender distinction and divine order physically but not a legalist never trim hair or maintanice it ! If trimming her hair meant she's uncovered then a man can wear his hair long as long as he trims it ! C'mon .. the vail is the church gathering covering NOT UNCUT HAIR .
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.
If you want to know what JESUS looked like and looks like. I would take Johns word over anybody’s and the written WORD.
Revelation 1:9
12And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. 14His HEAD AND HAIRS were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; 15And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters. 16And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
17And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death. 19Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; 20The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
He don’t sound like a bald head man or a beardless one?
Leviticus 21 The Priest
4But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself. 5They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.
II Samuel 2:4 4Wherefore Hanun took David's servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away. 5When they told it unto David, he sent to meet them, because the men were greatly ashamed: and the king said, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return.
Isaiah 50:6 6I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.
Psalm 133
1{A Song of degrees of David.} Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
2It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
3As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.
If GOD created women to have long hair to be her glory ( beauty, feminine) why did He create men with facial hair? ( to make them masculine, manly? Or so they could shave daily and make razor companies rich?)
In the apt words of one critic of this belief, “Why would God put hair on my face, and then send me to Hell for it?”
What does the Bible say about beards?
Old Testament Precedent
Beards were common: The Bible specifically mentions that David (1 Samuel 21:14), Aaron (Psalm 133:2), Ezekiel (Ezekiel 5:1), and Ezra (Ezra 9:3) had beards (among others). Interestingly, Joseph followed the custom of the Egyptians of shaving (Genesis 41:14), and is not condemned for it. Joseph participated in the culture of his day in a way that did not disobey God’s commands (Joseph obviously lived in pre-Mosaic times).
Beards were well maintained and trimmed: In Leviticus 19:27 (and again in Lev. 21:5) the Mosaic law forbids certain styles of beards: “Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.” Given the context, this was likely a reference to the pagan styles of the day, which were associated with idolatry.
New Testament Evidence
Did Jesus have a beard? The answer lies somewhere between “almost certainly” to beyond a doubt.
In Isaiah 50:6, Isaiah tells the story of a captive who was slapped and whose beard was plucked out.“I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.” Many scholars think this prophecy is Messianic, though the passage doesn’t say that explicitly. If the passage is Messianic, then Jesus certainly had a beard. If it isn’t, the Bible doesn’t say.
As a Jewish man, in light of all the Old Testament evidence he probably would have had a beard, but it depends on the degree to which the Greco-Roman culture (of being clean shaven) had influenced Jewish practice at that point.
So should short haired women not pray, unless they should shame their head? I’m concerned because you mentioned “black women’s hair doesn’t grow past their shoulders.” The Lord Jesus says to the Pharisees “you err because you know not the scriptures and you think in studying them, you’ll have eternal life.”
Good thing it is not about having long hair or hair past a certain length, but on having uncut hair. There is no room for competition when the Lord asks that the hair of a woman remain uncut. If a woman's hair remains uncut then her hair is long, regardless of length.
The womans covering in vs 5-6 is a Cloth Covering. If she doesn't wear that cloth covering when she prays or prophesies in the assembly, it would be a shame to her.
Hair in vs 14-15 paul is making the argument about the natural side agree with this . And he said long hair, not uncut hair.
Back to proof v6 is a cloth covering. If a woman be not covered. According to your idea, hair being covered, if the woman here is already uncovered, there would be nothing there to shave or shear, Correct ?
By wearing the Cloth Covering is showing her submission to her husband, keeps her in the created order and in turn gives her power with the angels.
How are we sure that this is a cloth covering and not hair ? Because it can be removed and put back on at will .
This is where the Church for centuries told men to not to wear a hat in church.
Paul states that the man is not to wear a covering in the assembly, and the woman is to wear a covering, when ?
All the time, NO !
Only has to be obeyed while they pray, or prophesy, Correct ?
So ladies, without a cloth covering over your hair, you have no power on your head because of angels and you are shaming your husband.
Sorry Sir, you were were deceived by men that did not understand this chapter. I was taught and believed just like you until God opened my eyes to this . Many others have seen this also in our oneness churches.
Preachers many yrs ago came up with the Uncut hair doctrine for 2 reasons.
One is, they did not want to make the women wear a Cloth Covering for what it would look like . The other reason is because they felt like they couldn't trust the women. Yes Sir, they just knew, if we let them cut or trim a little off, they won't quit, and so if we make them believe they are going to hell if they cut it, we wont have to worry about it .
Stonekings uncut Majic hair version was silliness. Making women believe they could rub their uncut hair on others for Healing ? Really ? Are you all that silly to believe that ?
You are very wrong on this subject.
You seem very nice and sincere, but sincerely wrong.
Very good Faithand food. Excellent teaching. So what Oneness Churches teach the true headcovering? I know various of the Black Churches do but am not aware of one.....predominately White Church.
I'm like you, I know of black Churches that do, but not any white churches unfortunately. Also I forgot to tell that Church History shows that after Paul made that decision, the women all wore Cloth Coverings in the Church for the next several hundred years . Amish and Mennonite women wear the outer Covering for this reason of Chapter 11 also .
Personally I stand fully with Oneness Pentecostals on Oneness and Acts 2:38. Beyond that I would say theres much truth to be restored INCLUDING the true headcovering.
I don't see where it says just to wear the covering when you're in church assembly, it says wear it when praying or prophesying so that can be anywhere. Also scripture says to pray without ceasing so I would think you would wear the covering all the time because we are constantly praying throughout the day wherever we are.
Yes, I agree it would be when praying anywhere, but I do believe as most scholars say, that Paul was talking about the Church and when they assemble. That's all I meant . When I pray anywhere, I take my hat off.
If I would Prophesy, I would take my hat off first . I didn't mean only in an Assembly, sorry .
So the oppresion of women continues...
Those verses apply equally to both men and women…