So women should have long hair when they pray and speak prophecies but go back to short hair when they don't verse 5? That wouldn't make any sense. Why is this generation so against women covering their head. And why is this pastor bringing up all that was going on in the unsaved Corinthians? Paul said the reason that a woman should cover her head during praying and prophesieth is because the angles see it. He didn't say anything about the pagan behaviors. Why add all these reasons that Paul did not give? Different roles doesn't mean unfair. Women's hate for the beautiful roles that God gave us has seeped into the church. And I guess men don't want their wives covering their head in worship. Sola Scriptura. This is so confusing he bringing up all these examples that have nothing to do with what our beloved bible does say. Paul was not confused when he said certain times women should have their heads covered and why. And you can't go from short hair when you not praying and grow your hair long real quick during prayer time. So sad. R.C. Sproul was one of the only pastors who spoke the truth on this subject.
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 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. 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? Verses 8 and 9 also gives us another understanding that Paul must have been offering us a couple of examples because he throws 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 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, which is another reason why hair 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. 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. * 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. Some have argued that the covering is Jesus or the woman’s husband. But that does not make sense because of the usage of the words long hair, shorn and shaven. Not to mention the fact that it wouldn’t make sense. Therefore do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long 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.
@@sanalouis2620 What does that even mean? Don't follow women who support what the Bible says? Are you even aware of what you are writing? Everyone should be happy and supportive of sisters who support what the Bible says. What do you mean by just follow what God says in the words, you mean the word of God? It is the same thing unless you are saying you have a problem with women then you should just admit it. Otherwise you are not making sense.
Father God, in accordance 1 corinthians 11:7, 2 corinthians 6:14-18 I bind myself to be the glory of my godly husband from now on and the days to come, while I loosen myself of every unequal yoke and common share with those treating me unglorious, in the name and blood of Jesus Christ, amen and hallelujah!
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
I have noticed that most head covering promoters misinterpret the beliefs of those who believe that long hair is the covering. In their efforts to show that it doesn’t make sense they will state something like: “If hair were the covering, then men should be shaved bald (aka uncovered) every time they pray.” You’d be surprised at how many times I’ve read this in the comments section of various RUclips videos. There are several errors here, the first being that no one is saying that to be uncovered means to be shaved. If a woman is to be covered in long hair and a man is NOT to be covered in long hair, then we are not talking about baldness or being shaved it just means that a man should not have long hair or another way to say the same thing is that he should have SHORT hair. So that is mistake number one. Mistake number two is that what Paul was preaching had to do with some action that requires something to be taken off (or put on). Although it is true that Paul was saying that men ought to be uncovered when praying or prophesying but he wasn’t being exclusive he was just giving a couple of examples. The idea is that a believing man should not have long hair (meaning he should be uncovered) while doing anything holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. What? Do you think Paul saying it was ok to be “covered” while preaching, talking in tongues, interpreting tongues, casting out devils, singing to the Lord, worshipping to the Lord, dancing to the Lord, etc. as long as it was not those two exclusive moments? Evidence that he must have been referring to hair is also based on his mentioning of the order of creation between men and women in verses 8 and 9. If Paul is making the effort to include this as a reason why women should be covered, and men uncovered then it must be BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats. It also must be BEFORE any idea of church. Therefore, what else could Paul be talking about if not hair way back in the beginning? It had to have been something that existed since then and had to have been natural like hair.
The only way to interpret what this passage says is to look at the response to this passage by the people to whom it was written. Church history shows that women in Corinth covered their head with a veil while men went bareheaded. There is no debate about history nor can there be any debate about the words since the contemporary people's behaviour clarifies this passage by their actions. If the first century women in Corinth wore a veil after Paul's letter arrived then the interpretation is clear. Yes the 1st century women in Corinth wore a veil when Paul's letter clarified that to not do so meant that you are not a Church of God.
I believe in wearing a Head Covering. Especially in light of Verse 5. Which is talking about only when she prays or prophecies. So, if it meant her Hair, then she would have to remove it when she was finished praying or prophesying? That doesn't make any sense! And as for the Man, obviously it isn't talking about his Hair, because then he would have to be bald, right?
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.
I don't disagree with the dionysus theory or the Isiah 6, or even this analysis of head covering. However, it is pretty clear that when Paul says "I will not let a woman teach....as it says in the law," he is mocking the language of the elders. Firstly, there is no such law in the Torah, the prophets, or the writings. Try to find it. Instead, Paul is referring to a law as stated by either Roman law or local custom. Secondly, Paul's following statement to the elders is a rebuke. He accuses them of adding to the law, which was heresy to Paul, by saying, "Was the word of God revealed only to you?"
I believe this man took scripture and twisted it. THAT IS WHY you are confused. Im not sure if this man purposely is working to confuse others or if he himself is deceived 🤷♀️ Please pray for guidance from the Father, not man. Father, I ask for the spirit of confusion to be broken off of this daughter of yours and for You to guide her through Your Word, in Your Son’s Name I ask. So be it…
If men would take responsibility of being a. Spiritual head this discussion would be moot. Remember the man rebelled in garden while the woman was decieved
The head coverings Paul talks about for the men of Roman occupied Corinth was a pagan custom of giving reverance to the sun god of Greece and Roman...the men of Pauls assembly were professing to believe in Christ but still keeping the pagan custom which dishonoured their head which is Christ....Roman women wore pagan head coverings also as a religious custom but this custom was only for married women and if these married women were found convening about the Roman religion or were out in public with out their head covering they were suspected of being adulterers...and if they were found guilty of adultery the punishment was to shave their heads to shame them.....Paul never commanded Christian woman to wear head coverings!..he was illustrating that Christ replaces the Pagan head covering for the man and Christ in the husband replaces the wifes head covering...This fulfilles the ordinance of God.
@@r2aul Check this lecture by Christopher Garold-Smith Unearthed:Corinth in Context...He is the only teacher I've ever heard get Corinthians 11 through 13 correct.
@@davestewart3555 I'll let you know what I think, sir. I think you are an angel! I have been compiling source material to make a presentation on 1 Cor. 11 and at zero hour this video you recommended has turned my 'strong' evidence into supportive material. This is the cherry on top, the icing on the cake, the ace up the sleeve! It's not just a speaker merely 'sharing' what he's heard- it shows the receipts. I am convinced you are an actor in a divine appointment! lol Thank you so much. You are in my prayers, bro!
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.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
So women should have long hair when they pray and speak prophecies but go back to short hair when they don't verse 5? That wouldn't make any sense. Why is this generation so against women covering their head. And why is this pastor bringing up all that was going on in the unsaved Corinthians? Paul said the reason that a woman should cover her head during praying and prophesieth is because the angles see it. He didn't say anything about the pagan behaviors. Why add all these reasons that Paul did not give? Different roles doesn't mean unfair. Women's hate for the beautiful roles that God gave us has seeped into the church. And I guess men don't want their wives covering their head in worship. Sola Scriptura. This is so confusing he bringing up all these examples that have nothing to do with what our beloved bible does say. Paul was not confused when he said certain times women should have their heads covered and why. And you can't go from short hair when you not praying and grow your hair long real quick during prayer time. So sad. R.C. Sproul was one of the only pastors who spoke the truth on this subject.
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 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. 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?
Verses 8 and 9 also gives us another understanding that Paul must have been offering us a couple of examples because he throws 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 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, which is another reason why hair 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.
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.
* 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. Some have argued that the covering is Jesus or the woman’s husband. But that does not make sense because of the usage of the words long hair, shorn and shaven. Not to mention the fact that it wouldn’t make sense.
Therefore do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long 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.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matterplease don’t follow women who support what the bible says, just follow what God says in the words simple as that
@@sanalouis2620 What does that even mean? Don't follow women who support what the Bible says? Are you even aware of what you are writing?
Everyone should be happy and supportive of sisters who support what the Bible says.
What do you mean by just follow what God says in the words, you mean the word of God? It is the same thing unless you are saying you have a problem with women then you should just admit it. Otherwise you are not making sense.
Father God, in accordance 1 corinthians 11:7, 2 corinthians 6:14-18 I bind myself to be the glory of my godly husband from now on and the days to come, while I loosen myself of every unequal yoke and common share with those treating me unglorious, in the name and blood of Jesus Christ, amen and hallelujah!
Look at the comments and you can see how people run from the truth.
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while
assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off.
So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head
when praying to God.
If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair
each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}
I have noticed that most head covering promoters misinterpret the beliefs of those who believe that long hair is the covering. In their efforts to show that it doesn’t make sense they will state something like:
“If hair were the covering, then men should be shaved bald (aka uncovered) every time they pray.”
You’d be surprised at how many times I’ve read this in the comments section of various RUclips videos.
There are several errors here, the first being that no one is saying that to be uncovered means to be shaved. If a woman is to be covered in long hair and a man is NOT to be covered in long hair, then we are not talking about baldness or being shaved it just means that a man should not have long hair or another way to say the same thing is that he should have SHORT hair. So that is mistake number one.
Mistake number two is that what Paul was preaching had to do with some action that requires something to be taken off (or put on). Although it is true that Paul was saying that men ought to be uncovered when praying or prophesying but he wasn’t being exclusive he was just giving a couple of examples. The idea is that a believing man should not have long hair (meaning he should be uncovered) while doing anything holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying.
What? Do you think Paul saying it was ok to be “covered” while preaching, talking in tongues, interpreting tongues, casting out devils, singing to the Lord, worshipping to the Lord, dancing to the Lord, etc. as long as it was not those two exclusive moments?
Evidence that he must have been referring to hair is also based on his mentioning of the order of creation between men and women in verses 8 and 9. If Paul is making the effort to include this as a reason why women should be covered, and men uncovered then it must be BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats. It also must be BEFORE any idea of church. Therefore, what else could Paul be talking about if not hair way back in the beginning? It had to have been something that existed since then and had to have been natural like hair.
Great clarity in confused times.
The only way to interpret what this passage says is to look at the response to this passage by the people to whom it was written. Church history shows that women in Corinth covered their head with a veil while men went bareheaded. There is no debate about history nor can there be any debate about the words since the contemporary people's behaviour clarifies this passage by their actions. If the first century women in Corinth wore a veil after Paul's letter arrived then the interpretation is clear. Yes the 1st century women in Corinth wore a veil when Paul's letter clarified that to not do so meant that you are not a Church of God.
Much needed in this day and age!
Whoo the truth hits different 👏 🙌
I believe in wearing a Head Covering. Especially in light of Verse 5. Which is talking about only when she prays or prophecies. So, if it meant her Hair, then she would have to remove it when she was finished praying or prophesying? That doesn't make any sense! And as for the Man, obviously it isn't talking about his Hair, because then he would have to be bald, right?
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.
I don't disagree with the dionysus theory or the Isiah 6, or even this analysis of head covering.
However, it is pretty clear that when Paul says "I will not let a woman teach....as it says in the law," he is mocking the language of the elders.
Firstly, there is no such law in the Torah, the prophets, or the writings. Try to find it. Instead, Paul is referring to a law as stated by either Roman law or local custom. Secondly, Paul's following statement to the elders is a rebuke. He accuses them of adding to the law, which was heresy to Paul, by saying, "Was the word of God revealed only to you?"
5:50
Like I always say, "If you are going to Preach Heaven, you MUST Preach Hell!"
I’m lost.
I believe this man took scripture and twisted it. THAT IS WHY you are confused. Im not sure if this man purposely is working to confuse others or if he himself is deceived 🤷♀️ Please pray for guidance from the Father, not man. Father, I ask for the spirit of confusion to be broken off of this daughter of yours and for You to guide her through Your Word, in Your Son’s Name I ask. So be it…
@@praiseyhwh6383 🙏🏽 Amen. And thank you.
Good. He's not correct, anyway.
If men would take responsibility of being a. Spiritual head this discussion would be moot. Remember the man rebelled in garden while the woman was decieved
The head coverings Paul talks about for the men of Roman occupied Corinth was a pagan custom of giving reverance to the sun god of Greece and Roman...the men of Pauls assembly were professing to believe in Christ but still keeping the pagan custom which dishonoured their head which is Christ....Roman women wore pagan head coverings also as a religious custom but this custom was only for married women and if these married women were found convening about the Roman religion or were out in public with out their head covering they were suspected of being adulterers...and if they were found guilty of adultery the punishment was to shave their heads to shame them.....Paul never commanded Christian woman to wear head coverings!..he was illustrating that Christ replaces the Pagan head covering for the man and Christ in the husband replaces the wifes head covering...This fulfilles the ordinance of God.
Can you provide references, please?
@@r2aul Check this lecture by Christopher Garold-Smith Unearthed:Corinth in Context...He is the only teacher I've ever heard get Corinthians 11 through 13 correct.
@@davestewart3555 I will. Thank you so much!!
@@r2aul No problem...let me know what you think.
@@davestewart3555 I'll let you know what I think, sir. I think you are an angel! I have been compiling source material to make a presentation on 1 Cor. 11 and at zero hour this video you recommended has turned my 'strong' evidence into supportive material. This is the cherry on top, the icing on the cake, the ace up the sleeve! It's not just a speaker merely 'sharing' what he's heard- it shows the receipts. I am convinced you are an actor in a divine appointment! lol Thank you so much. You are in my prayers, bro!
The covering is cloth, get real
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.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Yes this makes sense TY and GB.
Then why mention about who is head of who?
@@TinnyDee Well aside from seeing how the head order is constructed, it would be to see whose head one was dishonoring, later on in the passage.