Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
340: Should Christian Women Wear Head Coverings?! The SIMPLE, Biblical Answer
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 авг 2024
- Join us HERE for the Prayer Gathering-- each Wednesday at 11 AM EST!
Click "Notify Me" so you don't miss it! • Lifting One Another Up...
More Biblical resources on Christian women & headcoverings- hope this can be a help!
www.gotquestio...
• Should Christian women...
• Q&A-10 Head Coverings...
Get our FREE Hanukkah Resources guide! 🕎 bit.ly/3uMLIeo
Learn more about Hanukkah, where we see this in the Bible, and how, as Christians, we can celebrate this Festival of Lights!
🌷 Join the HMH Collective & start our Heavenly Minded Contentment study: www.youtube.co...
Join us for our 1 John study! Any level $5 & up will get you access to ALL! More Here: • Join Our Study: Heaven...
👩🏻💻 Helpful Links:
🏡 Learn more about our family & ministry: heavenlyminded...
🥰 Help support this ministry, serving families all around the world! bit.ly/39RR2CS
💌 Get the Monthly Newsletter: eepurl.com/hYYwiL
📖 Get the Family Bible Curriculum: bit.ly/3QBten2
📦 NOW ON AMAZON- Get the Family Bible Study: amzn.to/3PHKFRy
💸 Freebies, Savings & More: bit.ly/3dQd6j1
🌿 Bible Studies, Discipleship Classes, and MORE! / aphomeministries
🌷 Join the HMH Collective: www.youtube.co...
🎧 Listen to Heavenly Minded Home Has A Podcast: bit.ly/3OMgDwP
📚 Join us for co-op: gotohmh.square...
🛒Visit our shop! heavenlyminded...
Instagram: / heavenlymindedhomeschool
Facebook: / heavenlymindedhome
📺 Helpful Chapters:
0:00
♥ Is there something our family can lift up in prayer for you? Let us know!
Glory to God for all! 🙌
--- Our future, our eternity, our salvation is THE most important, we'd love for you to take a moment and visit this site for more: calvarychapelk...
I have extensively studied this topic. I have come to the conclusion that head covering is Biblical and it is only in recent times that women have stopped. Our salvation does not hinge on this commandment by any means, but covering my head is a small thing that I can do to Honor God. The Bible says to cover for prayer. So my belief on it is that if you feel in your heart a conviction to cover for prayer, then that is what you should do. Don’t allow it to become a vanity and pride thing though; keep it small and simple and humble. And I also don’t believe that we should judge the women who do not feel the same convictions as ourselves.
That's exactly my point it sure not going to condem you for .. 1 way or the other
I have also done an extensive research on this topic and have written a 40 page essay and can conclude that the covering is NOT a foreign object but long hair. Here is a small excerpt:
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.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 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.
* You Should Naturally Know Right from Wrong by Just Looking….
If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to:
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be “uncovered” should mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL should pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Why should the lack of a veil make a praying woman not have a “pleasing appearance” (aka look comely)? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is important so please don’t dismiss it.
Be honest with yourself do YOU really believe that the average person will look at an unveiled, praying woman and naturally think a VEIL is missing or would make her look unpleasing? Are we to assume that Paul expected the average person to have instilled within them the idea that a foreign object is missing from a woman? I have never seen or heard anyone say something like: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head?” after looking at a long-haired, praying woman. To so do would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right that there is an unpleasing appearance. I think I can say with some assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a short-haired woman from behind especially if we are not sure if the person was male or female. It seems like a natural reaction especially when we were young.
Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong: whether it be OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (a.k.a. short hair) while praying or OBSERVING a man having long hair.
In addition, by using the word “NATURE” one can’t even use the excuse that perhaps they were expecting only Christians to see something different. Clearly, if “nature” teaches us that something looks off then it must include all of mankind as nature teaches all of us both Christian and non-Christian.
I would like to also add that these verses are NOT jumping from the discussion of a “veil” in verse 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in verse 14 like some would like to argue because you will note that verse 15 refers again to the woman which FLAT-OUT STATES the “covering” is to mean “long hair.” Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses are referring to hair length. By this, we can understand verse 4 which states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered as I previously mentioned.
I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due to the false interpretation that the verse is exclusive to two conditions instead of seeing them as two examples. As mentioned before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR.
* Did people really view unveiled women as someone shaved?
I know this question sounds weird but I’m not trying to be funny, veil promoters have literally stated that Paul (and likely others at the time) viewed unveiled women as though they were shaved based on 1st Corinthians 11:5. Why would anyone think that a woman, who typically has long hair, be equated to being shaved if they did not wear the alleged veil? It doesn’t make sense and when confronted the typical response is that that is just the way it should be accepted. To them, it simply doesn’t matter if it seems illogical.
So, let’s follow the logic of verse 5 based on the idea that unveiled women are equated to being shaved. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Looking at this woman would you really think that you are looking at someone who is shaved, just because she is not wearing a veil? Do you really think Christians really looked at unveiled women this way? Doesn’t that seem unrealistic and odd?
But if “uncovered” means “short hair” like a typical man’s haircut, then it would make much more sense. It seems more feasible that a woman with short hair (aka uncovered) is likened to being “shaven” than someone who has long hair and without a veil.
In other words, it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven bald rather than being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even if she has long hair) is somehow equal (or “likened”) to being shaved as veil promoters claim. I am almost always shocked when people don’t understand how this view is unrealistic and illogical.
Is it true that veil promoters believe that if a woman is not covered in a veil, she should have her head shaved?
As similar as it may sound to what we spoke of earlier regarding the equivalency of a woman’s unveiled head to being shaved in verse 5, in this case, it is about literally shaving a woman’s head in verse 6 as a form of punishment. Now I cannot say this for all veil promoters, but I have been told, by many of them, that this is what the Bible teaches.
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is also often misinterpreted when it is simply mentioning in the same tone that if a woman has short hair, then yes let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shorn or shaven let her be covered in long hair. Yet veil promoters take this verse and have construed it to believe that back then Christian women were disciplined by having their heads shaved or cut if they did not wear a veil when it says no such thing.
Ok, let’s review this and put this in perspective. So, in verse 5 they believe that an unveiled woman is likened to a person whose head is shaved (which is an illogical comparison), and in verse 6 some believe that if the woman is not veiled that her hair should be shorn off as a punishment regardless of whether her hair is long.
When confronted about this extreme approach in verses 5 and 6 some head covering supporters do not deny it, as though this were normal. Yet when explaining that to be uncovered means to have short hair and covered means to have long hair, it is often regarded as though it were weirder than the extreme and illogical conclusions they claim to believe.
Agree completely.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter No choice but to agree with your thesis. Enjoyed the reading.
I've covered for 6 years now. Its mostly during church service. I always viewed it as covering MY glory (hair) so that only God's glory is seen during worship. 1 cor 11 says to cover while praying/prophesying. The decription of hair in 1 timothy could just be women not praying, so they have their veils off. Just a thought.😊 I found the history of covering quite interesting as well. Women not covering seems to be quite a new thing.
That’s exactly the main reason!! I was so excited to learn about this and even more to hear someone else understand the beautiful reasoning behind it. 😍
Absolutely- that's wonderful!
Paul tells women not to remove their veils at church. It's the sign they are married. It'd be like a wife taking off her wedding ring when she goes to church. For us culturally wedding rings are our outward sign we are married. Taken!
I've been covering for around 15 years and have never regretted it. I respect other women who choose not to cover their heads.
I cover for church and prayer as well. I did a lot of studying on it and felt convicted about it. I realized it was a very small and simple thing that I could do to honor God.
It all started when I was watching a random Mennonite Q&A on RUclips. Someone had asked "why she wore that thing on her head". Her response was simply that it comes from 1 corinthians 11. I had to pause the video. It was in the bible? I opened it up and read it. It seemed really clear. I had never heard any teachings on it in the church and had never heard of it, always figuring people who wore it was just a modesty thing in their sub-culture religion. ANYWAY, I went down a rabbit hole trying to find the reason why it doesn't apply today and the reasons i found all just seemed really lame..then I learned that Christian woman covered their heads pretty universally for almost 2000 years! It's been weird being the only one covering at church but I can't pretend it's not there now that I know.
The best part is I was convicted in that I realized I'd never read the whole Bible cover to cover. So I did. This seemingly random topic brought me deeper in the Word and I am so thankful to the LORD for getting my attention. Glory to God ❤
Was it Megan Fox? She's a Mennonite I watch and began my own research for the very same reason you did! ❤
@jennylhenry78 Yes, it was Megan!
About 8 or 9 months ago, I don't remember exactly, I started researching head covering, and it seemed clear that women are to cover during the public gathering for prayer and worship. This began with me getting more serious about the Bible but at the same time my husband was pulling further away from me and ended up moving out at the end of May and then forcing me to move out since it was his house. I'm drawing closer to God, but now I'm in the process of getting a divorce! I now go to a Messianic fellowship, and now I'm not the only one who covers. It seems kind of ironic that covering has uncovered how broken my marriage was.
Aww. Praying for you and your family!
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.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 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.
Heidi, the hair "given as a covering" is pointing out the natural covering in this passage. I do believe Paul is encouraging this church(and all churches, 1 cor chapt one!) to do what he commands in this book. Including women covering their heads in PUBLIC WORSHIP during a church setting. If a woman is praying or prophesing in church setting, can she remove her HAIR after the service? Ok of course not. She removes her covering after praying or prophesing.
Amen! I biblically agree with you @joyfulacres5484.
yes i agree
Amen 🙏 Perfect answer! Thank you sisters!
Well with all due respect there are a few misconceptions in your comment. First it doesn't say if a woman is doing such things in a church setting. There is no church setting withing the verses of chapter 11. Some tend to lean on this idea because praying ans prophesying is supposedly marked as worshiping moments. Yet I do not find that either or marked as evidence of worship. Think about it where does it say that prophesying is a form of worship?
And if you are mentioning that praying is a part of "public" worship wouldn't that be in contrast to Jesus's teaching that prayer is to be done in secret? Now you do make a valid point about a women having to be covered when praying or prophesying if they were exclusive. But I wouldn't assume that it would seem that Paul was merely giving two examples let me explain.
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 some 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 promoters 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 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 also 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 In the bigger context, when you read chapter 10 before it, and starting in 11:17 where it says, 'when you come together' it seems ALL of this part of the letter addresses their behavior as a corporate body and how Paul needs to correct things they are doing. So this headcovering issue appears to be, in context, related to public behavior.
Having said that, the statement Paul makes about it being shameful for a woman to have her head uncovered when praying is definitely something that each woman would feel a personal conviction about. For some women this is a long process to work through.
Your comment was very thoughtful and I enjoyed working through it, I just wanted to add my own perspective as someone who has studied this topic for three years and came to the conclusion I should be covered.this
Within the context of the rest of the Epistle, Paul continues in the same format of presenting questions, and offering biblical wisdom. We can't JUST look at those verses. Paul was absolutely saying, "This is what we do, this is why." The "judge for yourselves" was not an open invitation to say, "that's fine for some but not for me," it was a rhetorical device he'd used multiple times to make a point. The inference is that these things are obvious from God's created order, and being contentious about it makes no sense, nor does adopting any other practice, because all of the other churches participate in worship in this way. Why this particular set of verses is so controversial today is likely because of the feminist mindset and the call to change what we think and how we behave as women in the congregation of believers.
Personally, it is not that big a requirement to physically don a reminder of the spiritual truth that God is the head of my husband, and my husband is my spiritual head. In fact, the physical reminder puts me in a mindset of humility and reverence before the Lord in worship. If I have the opportunity to walk in greater obedience to the Word of God and to participate in a practice held by the first century churches, why would I not?
Amen sister!
Agreed :)
Amen!! I also mentioned that you have to read the whole letter at once and not just that part. When I finally sat down with my husband after a few years of wrestling it all made sense to me and now I headcover at church or any worship.. But I would never condemn or judge anyone else who decided not to. It’s my own conviction that I’m following to act accordingly.
Well said! This isn't optional, but universal. Jesus put the apostles in charge until he returns, 1st Peter 5:1-5.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT use the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. Some will use the phrase “head covering” to claim that the passage refers to it when this phrase is not found in the verses within 1st Corinthians 11:1-16. One can find them separately but not together to mean a synthetic covering. Therefore, it would be disingenuous to say that it does. The passage includes the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions, then why would Paul say in verse 7…
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue.
Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix.
“For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold.
This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking/attractive) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. The answer of which should obviously be no. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look unattractive and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair while praying looks especially uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). The reason is that they are intermingling the word head in verse 3 that refers to authority with the other word “head” that is being used to refer to the literal head of the human body. One can easily dismiss their interpretation because it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband and that the context includes the idea of hair and the shaving and cutting thereof.
So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. Therefore there are no two coverings just one which Paul refers to as being covered which he means to be covered in long hair.
Great video! This is an issue a lot of us are wrestling with right now. It's not the hill I'm going to die on- I don't see it as a saving issue- and I'm really not even out to change any minds. I will share, though, that I've actually flipped on this issue and I'm the only one at my church who practices head covering, but I wear a simple headband at my husband's request. I changed my mind when I looked back at church history and realized it's really only very recent that women haven't worn head coverings, which made me question why we went away from it. RC Sproul speaking on the topic also won me over. It's a hard issue to tackle. I'm trying to stay humble about it because there are strong arguments on both sides and there are lots of people I respect on both sides.
If it was a big enough of an issue for us to divide over... scripture would talk about it often! ;) I personally had asked my husband about this years back and if it would be something he'd like me to do-- his answer was an adamant NO.
XO
If your husband says, no, then that's pretty easily resolved 🙂@@HeavenlyMindedHome
I am the only one who head covers at my church also… I have a lace wrap that was used in my wedding and felt it was perfect to use. So I do may hair in different ways but always have that on for corporate worship/church. I don’t feel compelled to wear it any other time but it is more of an obedience to the wrestling I felt over the years with it and once I sat down with my husband and we went over the scripture and where I was at spiritually, he was supportive. Let me tell the you the moment I began this journey with it the amount of stuff that has come up to challenge me in it has been wild. Interesting when we make more room for honoring Christ whatever that looks like for people, how the enemy likes to try and defeat you.
@@HeavenlyMindedHomeI have to disagree to your argument that if it was a big deal that Scripture would mention it more often. Take a look at how many times the ordinance of taking the Lord's Supper is mentioned. Once. Yes, it is mentioned once, also in Corinthians 11 (not including the description of Jesus having the last passover before he goes to the cross).
I'm sure we can all agree that taking communion is an important ordinance and yet is only mentioned once.
Baptism, too! @@jennylhenry78
I had to stop the video half way through to explain why a woman's hair is not her covering.
#1 the word cover is used 6 times in the passage
Five times katakalupto (covered) / akatakaluptos (uncovered) is used
In verse 15 the word cover is a different word, peribolaion
Even though English translates both Greek words as cover, Paul uses a different word to distinguish natural covering to artificial covering.
#2 If long hair is to equal covered then short hair equals uncovered.
V6 NASB
For if a woman does not [have long hair], let her also have her hair cut off
V6 ESV
For if a wife will not [have long hair], then she should cut her hair short.
-obviously if a wife wont have long hair then she has short hair, so if its short then how can she cut it more?
#3 Paul is only concerned with covering at specific times (prayer and prophesying) must be that it is a removable covering to put on and take off not something permanent like our hair.
#4 Hair is a woman's glory; natural, permanent, glorious. Long hair is an adornment and a “glory” (v.15).
Covering is a symbol of authority; artificial, removable, symbolic. A headcovering conceals or covers glory (v.7, 15).
Hair and Covering are antithetical or opposite of one another, they cannot be the same thing.
-When we pray of talk of the things of God (prophecying) only Christ's glory should be shown. Man is the glory of christ which is why his head is to be uncovered. Womens glory is her hair and it should be covered as to only give glory to Christ.
#5 Not wearing a covering is new. Churches in other countries still do it today. It is only since women's liberation in the 1960s has the US churches stopped covering.
I have read more than a half a dozen books on this topic and have purchased several more to continue studying. I suggest also studying more indepth on this topic.
Excellent! I agree wholeheartedly (and have also looked into it extensively).
Women are also the glory of man. (:
Amen!!! All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Amen! I hope more will read this comment.
So why didn't Jesus rebuke the woman washing his feet with her hair?
@@stephaniejazzy7359 She used her glory to perform a lowly act- washing someone's dirty feet. Last time I checked, the people who endorse the hair being the only covering are anything but humble about their glory in such a holy presence. So it's not just about seeing that she used her hair but what was she using it for? That still doesn't change the apostolic decree given later. Even Christ later gave the command to baptize but the timing doesn't discount the decree.
Kindest regards
I recently tried to wear head coverings this year and my goal is to get over my fears of people looking at me funny and wear it full time! I am Christian woman and I have done a lot of research on head coverings and how it really used to be such a common thing up until feminism unfortunately. I think it’s more about modesty, showing your approval of gender roles, being submissive to your husband and doing what most women did for thousands of years until feminism destroyed everything. Should you wear it at church? Absolutely! All the time? Not totally necessary but I think should be highly encouraged. That my opinion!
Please be encouraged. You are not alone. You are a catalyst for God's daughters to return back to doing Bible things in Bible ways. Look at all the women in church history, and know that you're among a great cloud of witnesses. 😊
Don't allow people to influence you because church history as it can mean anyone from Catholics to Anabaptists.
Here is a small sample that can help you to research more thoroughly 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 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 hope you're becoming more content and strengthened in your journey to obey the Messiah and his apostles.
😊
No need to fret God will not judge you whether you wear a veil or not. Paul was referring to keeping the tradition of long hair on women. If you do you are good to go. Wearing a veil is completely ok by the way as long as it doesn't cross the line into thinking it is a doctrine or something.
Even if people look at you funny, Christ does not. It's his church, and we should do what he wants in his church. He's given his life for us, and we are the temple of God's holy spirit. We are precious to him, and this biblical practice is what he wants.
Colossians 2:8
As church, we literally partake in communion. As church, we literally immerse into water. As church, we should as women literally wear a veil during service while praying or prophesing. Simple.
All church mandates in this book1 Corinthians
Appreciate your comments @joyfulacres5484. Shame there are some commenters not humbling themselves and causing strife while proclaiming Christ.
Which part? because the words for veil or cloth are not there. Neither is the word "service" there either. What book are you reading from?
@@robertmiller812 I don't understand why would anyone inject the word service? People were being persecuted there were no church services. This is mind blowing how people inject modern beliefs into the Bible.
I was diagnosed with breast cancer two years ago. During chemotherapy, I lost all my hair, and I felt it in my heart to cover my head and not allowed my husband or anyone to see it, until my hair grows back. ( only my mom saw my head uncovered) because she helped me take showers after surgery. My husband was not ever able to see me without the head covering until my hair has grown back, and I looked feminine. He insisted many times to see my head and asked me to remove the head covering even a night time when we went to sleep, but the Lord made it okay in my heart to not let my husband see it, I felt the need to preserve the purity and to honor my husband and most importantly when I prayed I felt better when my head was covered. And to be honest I had forgotten this part of the scripture during that time, but that's what I felt the Lord put in my heart. Now that my hair has grow, I pray with out ceasing to my father anywhere, at any moment with out the head covering with the beautiful hair that my Lord gave back to me. Praise God!! ❤ I don't idolize my hair, I lost it once and it was well with my soul. I'm just grateful!
[15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
But if she doesnt cover her hair, then she should shave it off, verse 5. So her hair is a glory but it still should be covered or its a disgrace according to Paul. And blessings to you that you are healed!
First, I am sorry that you had cancer and had to go through chemotherapy. It must have been a very tough moment but praise God that you are delivered. You mentioned that you felt you needed to cover it until your hair grew back which is totally understandable especially given the medical circumstances. I think we are in the same understanding that God gave women long hair for a covering and now that you have your covering back there is no need to cover your head with something synthetic. Though it seems like a commenter appears as if they want you to keep wearing something synthetic due to a misquoted verse. As it says “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” Which is a tie-in from verse 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.” So it’s not about covering the hair but covering the head which hair obviously does.
In many churches, the problem is dressing as if one is ready to mow grass or clean the garage! People aren’t preparing their hearts or bodies to meet God in worship gatherings.
Look up Barbara O’Neil she knows a cure for cancer. Cantor oil on a towel and wrap it around the affected area.
Castor oil*
I feel like maybe this is a thing every needs to pray over and really seek God in. He really leads us to what we need. When I was truly saved 3 years ago I was on my face in my room repenting and I heard a voice tell me to cover my head while praying. I then wore a cover continuously for a year and then received confirmation from our father that didn’t need it except for prayer and worship.
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.
So WHY do you expect others o believe your "experience" over what the WRITTEN and COMPLETED WORD OF GOD already said!?!... You can hear many kind of voices... but that does NOT mean that it is coming from GOD! ...
Your experience is NOT "the Way, the Truth and the Life"! ...
@@ronelaalexe4857 I don’t expect anyone to believe me. I expect everyone who wants truth to pray earnestly to be led by the father. Shalom.
Thank you for sharing your story of obedience. Be encouraged 😊
@@marriage4life893 "story of obedience".... whatever that means!...
I would love to hear your take on women wearing skirts. I think it ties in closely with head-coverings. women are meant to look like women and it’s obvious to everyone if a woman is wearing a modest skirt/dress. I’ve also heard people refer to the scripture about being a “peculiar people” and it’s very true. When we dress modestly, people assume you are a Christian woman. I live in the South and everytime I go out wearing a modest dress or skirt, I have people asking me where I go to church and talking about the Lord to me in public. But, I think it also goes back to the heart of the matter. I don’t believe that pants are a sin by any means, I think that pants CAN be modest, but in the end… Are skirts more modest than pants? This is a constant battle in my mind that I’m trying to figure out where I stand. I have really felt like the Lord has been dealing with MY heart about this issue and I have felt more led to wear dresses and skirts. But I don’t look down on anyone for wearing pants ever. I truly mean that. I just want to do the Lord has dealt with me about and do what’s within His will for my life.
Right! I believe like you that it is an individual choice to wear skirts or pants. I personally prefer skirts. I like the more feminine look. Also, the way my body is shaped makes me feel like maybe pants hug my curves too much. The comments I get from men when I wear pants versus skirts tells me that I should probably be wearing the skirts.
Yes! I’m immediately more respected by men in public. I also think that being more covered is more respectful to my husband because everybody doesn’t need to see everything I have. Lol I also think that God made women’s body beautiful and we all know that men are visual creatures. There’s a verse in the Bible that says we are not to be a stumbling block for our brothers. They’re responsible for their thoughts absolutely, but we are also responsible to a certain extent. That’s totally my opinion and I understand everyone doesn’t think the same.
I live in an area that has cold fall/winters and random weather throughout the year. So wearing dresses and skirts all the time, I’d freeze. I’d still have to wear pants under them. I’ve always worn pants and still have been seen as feminine. You can wear a cute top and accessories.
@@StrawberryJamJam29 Respectfully, wearing a cute top and accessories to be feminine in pants isnt the point. That's what women in the world already do and that isnt setting yourself apart as this poster is seeking to do. The main issue is about pleasing God. If you don't feel that conviction that's fine. But for some women, it's about wanting to feel obedient and pleasing to God and the culture is so strong to fit in we actually feel bad about wanting to wear just skirts, thinking we need to apologize for it. That's how far we have fallen away from our feminity and God given roles.
@@StrawberryJamJam29 I used to think similarly to you at one point in time, especially when I first came into the Apostolic Pentecostal faith. It is finding the right skirt for the seasons that matter. I stay warmer in my denim (pants/HD Jeans weight) Skirts than I do in actual blue jeans. Some women uses like the Jeggings/Leggings under their skirts for additional covering. In the winter it, the skirt, holds the warm air in between your legs rather than blowing with the wind so much keeping you warmer than when wearing pants. Also historical ladies used to have quilted petticoats(underskirts) that were blanket like for additional warmth. Its all about the material, Garments, and layers that you choose to use. A good floor length flannel skirt will keep you pretty toasty with minimal weight.
I’m glad that you referenced God’s created order, not appeal to culture as it’s often used. There is a distinction between veiling and hair and this chapter references both. Our covering is not exclusively hair. The covering is for praying & prophesying. The hair is not put on and taken off each day, as a veil. It’s “yes and”.
When I did a massive study on this, women throughout centuries wore veilings and it wasn’t until the feminist movement it began to stop. If I recall it was called the Easter Bonnet Rebellion or something like that. Of course, it’s a heart issue because all can be taken to extremes and done for show not for the glory of Yah.
Yes- it has definitely been more cultural norm for a long time. :) Not that any of us are called to live by works, definitely not an issue of salvation.
I thought the veil was for married women? It'd be like a wife taking off her wedding ring. For them a veil meant they were married.
There is a distinction between veiling and hair and this chapter references both. Our covering is not exclusively hair. The covering is for praying & prophesying. The hair is not put on and taken off each day, as a veil. It’s “yes and”. Completely true. I don't think it's a command, but I do think that those of us who are convicted need to obey.
@@Rivkah_of_the_Remnant Boom! Exactly my views on it!
@@HeavenlyMindedHomeRemember the verse « show me your faith without your works and I’ll show you my faith by my works» and Jesus’ exhortation « Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven. »
Please do a word study on « works » and « good works »! We WILL be judged by works! Repentance and faith are both works as well. It’s just that salvation itself requires a supernatural work of God to be accomplished. It’s a « working together WITH God » to put it Biblically.
How about « Well done, thou good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of thy Lord »?
Shalom! I belong to Russian -Ukrainian Baptist Church. I had a chance to visit Israel for four times when I was single. I really liked how Jewish women cover their heads. In my community married sisters cover their heads in church and some would wear in public. So, as I was learning about Jewish religious head coverings I really understood what apostle Paul is saying. After Jewish women is married and doesn't want to wear a fabric covering, she shaves her head, and wears a wig that is made out of her own hair or any other wig. So Apostle Paul is saying if you don't want to wear a covering- shave your head! Who is going to want to go bold headed? No one! That's why we either were a wig or a fabric covering. Because hair that is attached to your head naturally is not a covering! Since I learned that, now that I am married and have seven sons, I wear a fabric head coverings everywhere! I do see blessing in it. I do think that everything in the scripture is important for our salvation! Obedience to God's word is going to bring us to heaven. Heavenly minded sisters understand that ❤. I look at it as a honor. We don't have to wear a fabric head coverings, but we get to wear a head coverings, just like a King gets to wear a crown. We get to dress modestly! We get to be home makers! And so on... I now encourage women to do so. Apostle Paul knew the roots of head covering privilege to married women. This was never cancelled! At the same time Man should wear their hair short. Christian woman should never cut their hair short, if she does, she either has to wear a wig or a fabric covering. God bless you all sisters in Christ! And thank you for reading my comment!
Ephesians 2:8 KJV
[8-9] "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works..."
Romans 3:23 KJV
[23]" for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; "
James 2:10 KJV
[10] "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. "
@@ConfusedBean777 Head covering is not about salvation, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works..."
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.
I'm not here to argue about this topic. I just thought I'd mention that in my studying on the topic I came to see that when they translated the bible they used the english words "covering and covered" thruoughout this passage, but when you study the Hebrew Greek study bible one covering literally means a cloth and one covering means your hair.
I encourage each of you to study it yourself with a Hebrew Greek study bible and look up every single word (covering or covered) and see what the Hebrew Greek meaning is for it, and pray about it before you write it off as not for today.
God bless. ❤️
With all due respect but I also have made a deep study and the word covered does not mean a cloth. It just means like it sounds "covered" and is more like an adverb than a noun. "Cloth" has a different word in Greek, read when Jesus was wrapped in a linen cloth (Matt 27) the word katakalupto which is written in 1 Cor 11 is NOT there. Therefore your conclusion is mistaken. Here is an excerpt from who made decent work on this subject.
“Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto (hanging-down, covered) to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around” (perbolaiou). In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the examples first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai.’ - Bernie Parsons
Well said. Thanks for sharing.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter A very good counter argument I hope more people see this truth.
I don't believe he was just talking to Corinth. He says, If anyone wants to be contentious (argue) let them know there is no other practice, (what practice? Headcovering) in all of the churches of Christ. Meaning every church practices it. Its not just a rule for Corinth. 🤷♀️
No- never said it was a rule for Corinth, simply that we must understand that this was a letter written to a specific group addressing specific things. We can absolutely glean truth and instruction through-- but we need to remember we're reading someone else's mail. :)
@@HeavenlyMindedHome Yes but all the churches practiced it, not just Corinth. Something occurred that caused Paul, not only to commend them for practicing it but to reiterate why they practiced it. Early church fathers confirm that head covering was practiced through out all the churches. It was a universal practice with universal and transcultural reasons.
@@HeavenlyMindedHome
1 Corinthians 11:16
[16] If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-nor do the churches of God.
All the churches practiced this. Now the contentious ones rule the roost. Satanic inversion.
@angelajoy6789 First, it seems your conclusions are not being based on the Scriptures, but things that happened OUTSIDE of the Scriptures, YEARS after the Bible was written.
Your comment also makes the ASSUMPTION that women were INSTRUCTED to cover their heads for ALL of church history a broad statement that I assume you are expecting everyone to simply accept. Proof is needed here.. And who are you including in this Church History? Catholics? Anabaptists? These would be two of the largest groups that not only held to this doctrine of veils but also believed in an array of many false doctrines. So I am guessing we are suppose to accept this doctrine regardless of whether they were practiced by groups who followed many false beliefs.
You are also implying that because certain churches followed this idea for a long time that they couldn’t be wrong. Yet there is Biblical precedence that God’s people can be wrong and for a very long time see Acts 7:47-52.
Remember Hosea 4:6
Like many issues, it has to do with the state of our heart. We have to look inward as women and ask if we are seeking attention with our appearance and if we are we need to humble ourselves. I also think we need to be respectful of other women’s husbands and that God made men to look at women. We should not be seeking attention from other men.
Amen and amen!
If the topic Paul is teaching is about men keeping their hair short and women's long then wearing a hat or not does not matter, when praying or prophesying. Unfortunately today some have chosen to think that 1 Cor 11 is about a hat or veil when this is all about hair lengths. At no point does Paul introduce any noun that clearly identifies as a hat or veil. Keep that in mind when you read the Scriptures.
God in his infinite wisdom has selected perfect symbols to display this difference in the created order. Our God loves symbols: He gave us the spotless lamb, the unleavened bread, the water in baptism, the bread & wine, the olive tree, marriage, the temple, the feasts, and the list could go on and on.
Each symbol was chosen by God for a specific purpose to point to a greater reality.
The argument for the use of head coverings:
-
Reason 1 - Creation Order- When a woman prays with her head covered, she is using a symbol pointing to something greater. It is the symbol that points to the created order, this is not a cultural argument but a transcendent argument as God the Father’s headship is eternal and unchanging.
Reason 2 - Because of the Angles- Many people automatically assume that the practice of head covering was intended for only the Corinthian’s local culture and time period. But when Paul says that a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head “because of the angels,” he adds yet another solid indication that the practice is intended for the Church as a whole, irrespective of local culture or time period.
Reason 3- Nature - There are two things that nature teaches us: 1) That there are distinct differences between men and women 2) When a gender distinction is disregarded and crossed that dishonors a person. To illustrate his point Paul gave the example of our hair lengths. He said that women having long hair and men having short hair is one of those gender distinctions that is seen in nature and dishonorable if crossed (1 Cor 11:14-15). Now, a head covering in the context of the local church is a feminine symbol of being under male authority. Since the symbol is rooted in our gender distinctions nature teaches us that to cross this symbol would likewise be dishonorable (1 Cor 11:4-5). So while head coverings are taught explicitly by special revelation, it is confirmed by what nature silently teaches us as well.
Reason 4- Church Practice - Tertullian was a Christian apologist who lived from 160-220AD. Having observed the 3rd century Corinthian church firsthand, Tertullian in essence says “they understood that Paul meant all women must wear head coverings. That’s evidenced by the fact that to this day that is still their practice.”
This teaching remained the standard practice of most churches throughout most of the Church History. As R.C. Sproul notes “The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church of Jesus Christ which is “the pillar and ground of the truth”?
Head coverings are not some new strange doctrine. This is an old doctrine, based in the Bible and understood that way by the majority throughout the history of the church. Head coverings were practiced in all churches, and we are the exception today.
Amen sister!
Well said! It's a satanic inversion where the contentious ones have taken over. Keep standing in truth.
The passage in I Cor 11 addresses men's headcovering as well - saying that men must remove it from their heads during the public worship service. So if hair is seen as headcovering as you say does that mean that men must be shaven bald before they could enter the public worship service?
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.
Public....worship....service ??? I have to assume this is either coming some extremely liberal Bible version or lunacy. The KJV does not refer to any service of any kind, This is ludicrous to believe that this passage makes any reference to something man has created today like churchianity.
@@GodsWordisTruth-zg1jj Well said.
Actually keep searching God will reveal the truth to you.
@@jcilliers4412 Yes. Well said. Keep standing on the truth of God, and don't let the contentious ones sway you from the truth. Colossians 2:8
Yes!
The short answer is YES. :)
Look historically and globally and it will become SO apparent! Western Christianity is the anomaly. *Not* covering is an anomaly, friends.
When I was born again after repenting last year, the Holy Spirit completely transformed my heart and also convicted me gently to wear modest long skirts and veil my head. I also stopped wearing adornments like makeup and jewelry. It’s never felt like a religious thing, and I haven’t felt some kind of carnal disdain for those who don’t. On the contrary it’s humbled me and made me want to share the beauty of it all with other women who want to walk closer with Jesus!
I’ve never felt closer to the Lord! I encourage you to seek the Lord on this, everyone! You may be surprised! I saw an excellent video where a girl explains this really well with a broad historical context. I’ll try to find the title and add it to my comment.
Friend, you are teaching this wrong and should be careful. We will be held accountable for what we teach. I exhort you to seek the Lord on this and do a more thorough study. The original text uses two different words for covering in this passage. Hair is NOT the covering to be used. Please do a word study. Try Adam Clarke’s commentary (eSword app has it). He defers to other commentators who have very helpful things to say. Look at early Christian commentary and teachings on it too. There is a consensus. That only changed with feminism. Anabaptists have good teachings on this too. Also, it’s not a preference thing. It’s a command for all true Christian women, with an appeal to creation.
As for the fancy hairdo Scripture later on, that doesn’t contradict previous Scripture, creation appeal, or millennia of Christian practice. Women could have easily spent time on and focused on hairdos AND covered. They’re not mutually exclusive. Coverings may not have concealed the front of the hair, for example, or may not have been worn in limited contexts, like in the home at certain moments. Even fully veiled, a woman could have been overly focused on doing her hair before covering. Biblical veils were loose anyway. So no contradiction there. :)
In the Old Testament, the unveiling of the hair was seen as a shame, an act of rebellion or disassociation from a husband, or a sign of adultery or prostitution. In fact, someone suspected of or caught in adultery would have her veil removed.
Please do look into it. 😊
I love this so much. This was my exact experience coming to Christ 3 years ago!!
@@happyjoynesssReally? Praise Jesus! I’ve had so much joy over it that I long to share it with others. It’s so exciting to connect with others who have had the same experience! How have friends and family reacted to it?
I've been wanting to wear more long skirts as well, but was never convicted about head covering. I just don't fancy it up to show it off.
My family and in-laws thought I was crazy. Lol. They probably still do but they are used to it now. It’s a freedom in this where others would say it’s restricting. In a way minimalism is to most. What was your experience with family?
I believe she is teaching this correctly - and Tamar’s sign of the trade when she disguised herself as a prostitute was to cover her face in a veil: “When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, because she had covered her face with a veil” (excerpt from Genesis 38:15).
It is NOT obvious that women are to cover their heads with a veil. Paul was saying that women ought to cover their heads with long hair. The fact that it is written in verse 15 should make anyone take notice that long hair is the covering. You wont find anything else being mentioned unless you read some corrupt modern versions. See for yourself in the King James.
If head coverings is hair then men should be shaved bald while praying and prophesying, for Paul says every man doing so with his head covered (hair, according to your opinion) is dishonoring his head (Christ, according to Paul and the natural order of things).
This chapter is not about women looking like men at all. It’s about a spiritual state and order, and women acknowledging that order with an outward symbol, “while praying and prophesying”…because of the angels, says Paul.
But still, in our day, women feel weird about it, me included at times, because many of us wear the pants, literally and figuratively, and we’ve been raised in the era of women’s lib. We see the whole thing as oppressive and in many circles and cultures it has been abused.
But facts are facts. Paul appeals to a spiritual order that isn’t specific to the Corinthians. Furthermore, Paul says if anyone wants to be contentious about it, that they have no other custom and neither do the (other) churches of God.
Paul is using hair as a “type” of covering to illustrate that if a woman prays or prophesies without a covering that she may as well be bald. He also illustrates that hair is a glory for woman (we all agree), and woman is man’s glory. Carry that thought forward that man’s glory ought to be covered when approaching the throne and we’re in the presence of angels, otherwise we’re dishonoring our head (man, according to the order Paul illustrates).
We are reading into it something that just isn’t there when we reduce it to hair vs short or no hair (on a woman, specifically), and we miss out on a much greater spiritual truth and opportunity. It also completely ignores what Paul says about men covering vs not covering.
Remember, this is an outward symbol of an inward position and acknowledgment, and it only applies when praying and prophesying.
Amen sister!
Everyone gets stuck on the women's veil and totally miss that men should take hats and turbans off to pray. Socially women have stopped covering the men's socially are still asked to take their hats off at the ball game during the anthem take their hats off at the table so you can pray before dinner their ask to take their hats off in church all of these instances where it's shown take off their hats in certain situations and we forget the women are supposed to be covered in the exact same situation
Amen
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, worshiping 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.
@@lydiablustin hello and peace to you. Thank you so much for your comment.
You said the passage isn't about men looking like women and vice versa.
Do you think that if a woman doesn't practice this, then she is looking like a man- coming to God without the covering and/or coming to God with short hair?
Blessings
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.
Mike winger has an excellent long video on this topic. Very worth watching every minute
It depends on what you think is "excellent". Many women call something excellent because it agrees with their take on something and as this is such a controversial topic perhaps you should clarify why it's 'excellent'. I have found him to often have a modern, shallow take on things and had to stop pointing people to him a while ago.
@@TakeItPeasy i wouldn’t call a 6 hour video on this one topic shallow.
@@capturedbyannamarie I watched most of his video and though he mentions several ways people have interpreted he fails to give a definitive answer on the subject. You should read the comments from those who watched the whole thing who came out confused because Mr Winger never says whether women ought to wear a veil/hat or not. Plus he never went in depth on the subject of hair being the covering. That went too fast in my opinion.
Yes- but he concludes that it's not for today simply because we don't understand it's meaning the same anymore. But, this is faulty logic. The reason we don't understand it because the church has failed in teaching about it. It would be no different if we failed to stop teaching about the meaning of the bread and wine/juice.
That topic is not a matter of discussion. It is written:15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. 1Corintians 11-15,16
Amen Sonya, praise God that there are still some who recognize this simple fact that long hair IS the covering. God bless
Well said sister. Thank you for being obedient to God's word.
Given to her FOR a covering. Not as a covering. The word covering in verse 15, in the Greek is a completely different word used in the previous verses for the same word. Our hair is our glory, and was made for a covering to be on it while we pray and prophecy.
@@courtneydavis-v3i This is just mental gymnastics you are trying to do here. The point is that it IS the covering. The ONLY covering. There is no evidence of "another" covering. Paul states 7 times that he is talking about hair and not once about a synthetic one.
I would rather wear a head covering in church.
I found your take on the covering of a woman's head. We were a part of a church that strongly emphasized a woman has to wear a head covering. It was so strongly emphasized that women must be in submission to her husband and this is the symbol of submission. The pride in the "perfect" covering was often more highly esteemed than integrity of the heart.😢
My conviction is a pure heart first. I can put nothing on for my righteousness before God. The covering can be a beautiful thing in pure modesty. I personally see it as a custom. To many of our people, it was purely custom. Many didnt even know why it was worn.
That second scripture(Timothy) they were having elaborate hairstyles. They could have still had it peaking from under a head covering. The women about her would have been focused on seeing her hair peaking out vs. coming together FOCUSED on worshipping Messiah.
Having it peaking from under a head covering is a guess. Clearly there was no mention of some kind of covering therefore one can only conclude that believing women must have been walking around without any manmade covering. Plus there is no strong evidence women had to worship God with something on their heads
What about makeup? Nail painting? Modest dressing? We know that our lord God doesnt want us as women wearing tight immodest clothing, showing our bodies. We know that Jezebel painted her face to draw in attention to make herself look dif pleasing to the flesh eye. And what did it say about her in the bible?
Where did wedding rings come from? Also.. just like when women weaves all the jewels in their hair to showmoff how much money they have and status, same goes for wearing jewelry on our fingers, neck and putting holes in our ears.. as we should not. Our bodies are a temple and our sacrifice for christ is living for him mind body soul.
(THE WAY I BELIEVE AND LIVE IS NO BETTER THAN ANYKNE ELSE)
Just wanted to mention those things while talking about this topic because it applies the same way.
Right! The only women who wore makeup that were mentioned in the Bible were Jezebel, backslidden Israel (Jeremiah 4:30), and two sisters who were prostitutes (Ezekiel 23:40-44). God made us perfectly without makeup, and it grieves Him when His daughters are using these products. Eyeliner was used to get the attention of Egypt's gods as well as to protect from evil spirits...the origin of makeup in the US was in Red Light Districts. We must look at history as well as the Bible to learn the origins of things we partake in. Christ Himself was not attractive...Isaiah 53:2. May God receive the glory in our lives...not our looks.
Christian women do no have to wear head covers
Amen thank you for preaching the truth and for obeying the scriptures.
Truer words were never spoken..Keep up the good work. 😊
Amen! Women do not need to wear a manufactured covering as long as they have long hair that is stated as the covering then that is all that is required.
Are you saying they don't have to wear an artificial covering, have long hair, or both?
If Paul was talking about hair being our covering, the text would not make sense. For example, vs "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved." Phrase replacement will tell you a lot. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her hair cut short (aka not long hair) dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. or v 6 "So if a woman’s head is not covered, her hair should be cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should be covered." Phrase replacement So if a woman’s head is cut short (aka not long), her hair should be cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should be covered.... Do you see it doesn't make sense? You mentioned 1 Timothy 2. Paul specified that women should be covered in prayer and prophecy. He did not say that women should be covered at all times. So, of course, hair styles would be visible outside of church or during work or any activity that wasn't prayer and prophecy. Also note, that women of the day, wore Pallas. Both Pallas and togas had an extra piece of cloth that hung down from the shoulder (much like Indian Saris). Historical information shows us that the piece of cloth would be pulled up over the head. It would often cover the back of the head, not necessarily the front where the hair style would still be visible. Paul also did not give any cultural reasons for the practice of women covering and men uncovering. He based his arguments in nature and creation order and because of the angels. These reasons completely and utterly transcend culture. He also was commending them for following this instruction like all the other churches. v 16. It was not something only practiced in Corinth. This is further confirmed by the early church fathers talking about head covering as a practice all churches observed. I believe you are a complementarian in which case you should note that some of the same reasons we are given for head covering are the same as for submission in other verses. Paul also is PRAISING the Corinthians for following the instruction. He wasn't correcting the church for not observing it nor was he correcting women for rebelling against femininity. We need to be very careful about adding culture and reasons for something the apostles write. In this case, he gave the reasons for his instruction. Lesbos wasn't one of them. Isn't it curious that, if that was the reason, he didn't mention it? Nature is what tells us short hair on a woman is shameful-not because of women wanting to be men in a neighboring island. Not covering was just as shameful as being shaved. If a woman wouldn't wear a covering, then she may as well just shave or chop off her hair. That is what Paul was saying. I urge you to study this further. Note that NOW specially attacked women covering their heads during the Easter Bonnet rebellion because of what it stood for. Since then, the church has shied away from the issue and have found false reason after false reason for not practicing it. But, the plain reading of the text, in context, does tell us that it is something we should all be obeying as the reasons are transcultural and timeless.
Misconceptions of Long Hair being the Covering.
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 a woman doesn’t have long hair let her cut her hair? That just doesn’t make sense.”
In other words, they are under the impression that one is confused when explaining verse 6 because why would it ask to cut the woman’s hair if it was supposedly already cut? Therefore, this explanation does not make sense as it seems to be repetitive, but this is not being understood correctly. But "not being covered" (aka uncovered) means having short hair but that does not mean that it cannot be cut shorter or shaved off. I have short hair, but neither is it a buzz cut or shaved off bald.
Therefore, even though I have short hair it doesn’t mean that it cannot be cut even shorter or shaved bald.
So now it is important to understand what shorn and shaven mean. The word “shorn” is the same word used when you shear sheep. A stubble is left behind. And shaven implies using a razor which implies that all the hair would be taken off. Note that the word “shorn” is repeated alongside the word “shaven” in the KJV as if to confirm and clarify that they are referring to something that causes shame.
Obviously cutting off an inch of hair is not going to cause shame therefore the meaning implies something extreme. And since both words imply seeing the scalp we must be referring to baldness. A quick look at any dictionary will show that these words are synonymous. Therefore, by mentioning these words side by side Paul would seem to be emphasizing the fact that women with short hair may as well be made bald or almost bald.
Yet some will refuse to see the obvious logic here and still claim that it doesn’t mean baldness but just that it is cut, as if to say to cut off a bit from the top when one goes to the barber. But what they don’t do is the due diligence that the SAME word “shorn” is used when Paul makes a vow and cuts off his hair. I don’t think when normal people read this that they assume that Paul took an inch off his hair right? No, it was common back then that when someone was serious about a vow they would do a serious act like cutting ALL their hair off. There is nowhere to run away from this, shorn just like shaven has to do with baldness.
It would also be very difficult to claim that Paul was speaking metaphorically as hair seems to be the main theme here and the removal thereof repeatedly. Why would he repeat the words shaved or shorn unless he was being literal? I think most of us can agree that having short hair (like in a typical male haircut) is NOT the same as having their hair shorn or shaven aka bald. Therefore, a woman being “uncovered” simply means that she has short hair and that in doing so she might as well shave the REST of her hair off. It’s not that complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
Unfortunately, people tend to get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seem like some kind of headwear but do not consider all the verses that show that “covering” means long hair and that “uncovered” means short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can we conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet, or veil?
I reiterate, how can one have logical judgments in the example I gave that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil one would automatically assume that there is a foreign object missing? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, I implore everyone to set aside any bias and explain to themselves 1st Corinthians 11:13 thoroughly, but I suspect most people will simply ignore it. This, therefore, makes the whole veil interpretation wrong, that it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
* 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.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Great comment dude!!! Kudos!
Amen. 😊
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Hey were is the counter argument? No reply huh? I suppose that it would be hard to kick against the Biblical facts. Amen. A job well done.
I couldn't have explained it better myself. Keep your hair long and cover it at church. Men do not cover your head at church and keep your hair short. Simple, submit.
It's not to hard for me to keep my hair short because I'm bald LOL.
I agree with almost everything said except the church part. If we are to be sticklers of the Bible we must admit that the word "church' is not mentioned therefore we cannot just throw that word in there. The Bible says that women are to cover their heads yes, but Paul was giving a couple of examples that they should cover their heads in LONG hair especially if they pray or prophesy. Those two were just EXAMPLES that I am sure you can understand can be done both privately or publicly.
Quran - Doesn't say anything about head coverings, yet most Muslim women wear head-covering.
Bible - Clearly says that women should wear head-coverings, yet most Christian women are even worse, not only do they not cover their hair, but they dress tight clothing and expose their bodies.
Very ironic if you tell me.
@@eliasziad7864 Bible never says any such thing.
Pretty simple. Thanks for sharing the truth.
In the Greek language of the Bible the word for "covering" in verse 15 is not the same thing as the word "cover" in the previous verses. The way it is translated in English makes the entire passage seem very self-refuting because Paul makes it clear that a woman is to have her head covered, only to then (seemingly) say that her hair actually works to do the job (after saying her hair should be shaved off if her head is not covered.) So Paul would basically be refuting himself after giving a reason based on Gods' design for a woman wearing a head covering. Thankfully the Greek clears this up, and the word for "covering" in verse 15 is entirely different and I believe it is a word that is better translated as "decoration" or something similar. This would further emphasize what Paul is already saying instead of refuting himself. I would encourage anyone to look into it yourself. His statement about the other churches following the same practice doesn't sound at all like he's just talking about a problem in the church at Corinth either. If he were to be addressing a problem specific to Corinth then I don't believe he would say that about the other churches. Those are my thoughts. God bless.
Amen sister!
“Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around” (perbolaiou). In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the examples first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai.’ - Bernie Parsons
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Thank you for taking the time to reply to my comment. I have taken some time to consider what you have written and would like to give a response to it. You are correct about the word katakalupto being an adverb. I, too, believe that it is a reference to a state of being. Although I believe your view is logical and well thought out, there are a few things about it that I believe are not consistent with the text. The first is that you apply the word katakalupto to the hair of a woman, but the text applies it to the head. That ever so slight departure from the structure of the sentence leaves open the possibility to hold an interpretation consistent with yours, and your logic is quite consistent. The problem is that it is just not what is written in the Bible. The actual words do not align with the argument that is being used. My position uses the actual words of the Bible on the matter, but yours does not. We must use the actual words. Second, if a woman has her "head" uncovered, it makes sense that her head be shaved for not covering it. I can't see why Paul would say a woman's head should be shaved for not having it further showing. Paul goes on to say that it should be done because of the "angels." The word for angels is the same as messengers. I believe the messengers would have been the males who were teaching. Paul wanted the women's heads covered in the presence of males. Third, Paul's logic about a woman having authority "on" her head and a man's head not being covered because he is the "imagine and glory of God" don't seem to mesh with your position. I appreciate your response to my previous comment, and I respect your position. I honestly had never heard that position before and I believe I could accurately represent the position now if someone were to ask me about it.
@@hooch175 Hi, thanks for your reply as well. Just to clarify the comment I made is a quote from someone who studied this topic which I agree to a certain extent. Ok so it seems like you are saying that because the word katakalupto text applies to the head therefore it should not apply to the hair. I would say it would be somewhat odd to separate it altogether given that hair and head are normally attached together (no pun intended). If we were to just go with the basic root understanding of the passage it should be understood as something that covers and that it should cover the head whether it be hair or in your case a veil or hat. This also should lead you to ask why Paul didn’t use a word to clarify that he meant a hat or veil, etc. Some Christians today have been seeking an answer to this question for a long time, along with the dimensions, color or type of fabric. Some have tried to, unsuccessfully in my opinion, show it was a cloth but of course the word cloth as used in Jesus’s burial clothes are not used in this passage. If we are to truly use the actual words of the Bible then we shouldn’t add or assume things if it isn’t there unless it is explained further on. For example it should be evident that hair, in general, is mentioned quite a few times which should not be dismissed. In the KJ Bible the words long hair, shorn and shaven are all written twice. Clearly hair was a major issue in the passage,
You also mentioned that if a woman has her "head" uncovered, it makes sense that her head be shaved for not covering it. I can't see why Paul would say a woman's head should be shaved for not having it further showing.
First of all one should note that a woman’s long hair is her covering according to verse 15. If the “covering” is long hair then to be “uncovered” means to have short hair. Remember that a man’s head should be uncovered, to it is obvious that Paul is not saying a man’s head should be shaved bald, so let’s put aside this odd idea for a moment as some people like to associate. Logic dictates that if a woman’s head ought to be covered and say that it is to mean covered in LONG hair, then to be uncovered means the opposite, to not be covered in long hair. This implies that the person would have SHORT hair. With this premise we can see that Paul was saying that if a woman who has short hair (uncovered head) would be under the result action of having her head shaved. This logic lines up with the previous verse that stated that an uncovered head is likened to a shaved head. A short haired woman can easily be likened unto a shaved head. But the “veil theory” alternative would be a very illogical and strange in my opinion, in that a woman (who typically would have long hair) simply because she doesn’t have a hat or veil on would be likened to a shaved head? That does not make sense to say that a woman without a veil or hat even with long flowing hair is equated to being shaved.
As for the "angels" there are many theories out there for this brief mentioning of this word that seems to come out of nowhere to be accurate. So you may be partly right and I may be partly right. But what we can understand is that it was a reason for the woman to cover her head (in long hair). And since as you stated we should use “the actual words of the Bible” therefore there is no scriptural reason to assume the angels being referred to were males. It just says angels and we should just leave it at that.
You also mentioned that Paul's logic about a woman having authority "on" her head and a man's head not being covered because he is the "imagine and glory of God" don't seem to mesh with your position.
Well in the KJV it says power not authority and that is another of those things that scholars are not sure what to make of it. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
The only thing we can say for sure is that this verse as well as the verse you mentioned regarding men being the "imagine and glory of God" are reason why they should cover or not cover. So it really doesn’t change anything.
Lastly here is an excerpt from my 40-page thesis on this subject that tends to help some reevaluate this issue. Keep in mind it is a copy and paste and is not being directed personally.
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be “uncovered” should mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL should pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Why should the lack of a veil make a praying woman not have a “pleasing appearance” (aka look comely)? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is important so please don’t dismiss it.
Be honest with yourself do YOU really believe that the average person will look at an unveiled, praying woman and naturally think a VEIL is missing or would make her look unpleasing? Are we to assume that Paul expected the average person to have instilled within them the idea that a foreign object is missing from a woman? I have never seen or heard anyone say something like: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head?” after looking at a long-haired, praying woman. To so do would be ludicrous. One would have to be totally biased to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right that there is an unpleasing appearance. I think I can say with some assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a short-haired woman from behind especially if we are not sure if the person was male or female. It seems like a natural reaction especially when we were young.
Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong: whether it be OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (a.k.a. short hair) while praying or OBSERVING a man having long hair.
In addition, by using the word “NATURE” one can’t even use the excuse that perhaps they were expecting only Christians to see something different. Clearly, if “nature” teaches us that something looks off then it must include all of mankind as nature teaches all of us both Christian and non-Christian.
I would like to also add that these verses are NOT jumping from the discussion of a “veil” in verse 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in verse 14 like some would like to argue because you will note that verse 15 refers again to the woman which FLAT-OUT STATES the “covering” is to mean “long hair.” Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses are referring to hair length. By this, we can understand verse 4 which states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered as I previously mentioned.
I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due to the false interpretation that the verse is exclusive to two conditions instead of seeing them as two examples. As mentioned before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR.”
Again, thanks for your reply. I always appreciate a good discussion. God bless.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Thanks for your response. You've certainly given me a lot to think about, and I hope I've done the same for you. I appreciate you taking the time to articulate your thoughts for me. I hope our short conversation has been as beneficial for you as it has for me. I also hope it sets a good example for others in discussing different views without taking offense. God bless you too, and I hope you and yours have a merry Christmas! -Ed (I know that someone commented "Amen sister!" to me earlier, but I'm actually a mister 😁. I recently purchased a new cell phone and for some reason it has me signed in on my wife's account.)
Nothing to do with public or congregation. Its not just at church but anytime you pray or prophess.
Interesting thoughts. You can cover your head while also styling the length of your hair in a high maintenance way ... or in a simple Christian way. The issue is to cover the head, not the full length of hair necessarily. The Apostle was clear to state it's a head covering and not a hair covering like in other religions. So what you speak about in Timothy about women to not wear braids doesn't change the meaning of covering the head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 DRC1752
[5] But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.
If she has to put something on while worshipping, then we are talking about fabric and not growing hair to long lengths because you don't put on and take off the hair you grow.
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 DRC1752
[14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? [15] But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
Here the Apostle is making a point that even nature is showing us that a woman should cover her head because a woman likes to grow her hair long but it's disgraceful for a man to spend that much time to retain hair length.
He's making a point that even the natural inclination of a woman is not to want to be bald and it's a natural covering. It doesn't mean that's all a woman has to do or else this letter would have been about hair lengths and not head covering.
It would have been enough to say women should keep long hair lengths. But the Apostle went to great lengths to talk about covering the head.
Covering the head is our way to be set apart which is a requirement. Jesus Christ is no respecter of persons and cultures. He didn't say, "if you live in Western countries, uncover your head and if you live in the East cover your heads - each one follow culture." We are to set ourselves apart from this world.
It's all about respecting the authority heirarchy and covering our heads specifically - not the hair beyond the head space necessarily.
On a side note, Christian women are required to be Christian even if they face persecution. If a woman follows her husband against God’s Way, it doesn't suddenly give her a free excuse. If we are not wanting to wear it cuz we are too ashamed to look Christian, Jesus Christ might not really want to mention us to Abba Father.. His words not mine.
With love ❤
Amen and well said.
I do think some women suddenly want to lean on their husband's authority when it's convenient for them. However, in the passage, Paul isn't looking to the husband's approval of the practice but to God through Christ. Those husbands will bear the responsibility for leading their wives astray from obedience to something Paul said was practiced in all churches everywhere. This is what it looks like when the contentious ones take over. They'll correlate so much of church decay and attack on traditional roles to women's liberation, but when it comes to the practice of covering, they sound just like the world. Isn't it crazy how they mostly claim its cultural when they're the ones being cultural today? Well, it is cultural.... it's church culture, and it's still a torn in the sides of the worldly.
They look to their husbands for authority to discard the ordinance that points to his authority in Christ.
Make that make sense.
@@marriage4life893 thank you so much for shedding light that it is just God's Way... we can't put culture over the Lord Jesus Christ.... to be honest, I struggled with that myself recently.
I used to be Protestant and I guess technically I still am because I haven't gone thru catechism for Orthodoxy yet. One day, my future husband told me to find the oldest translation I could get my hands on to read the Bible. I obeyed his words to me. Well on the Bible app, that was the Douay-rheims version. Wow did it open my eyes! I realized there are whole books I never had any access to! There I was, struggling to understand what is acceptable for a woman's position in the Bible and unable to figure it out biblically.
Then one day I read this passage in the Book of Judith:
Judith 10:1-4 DRC1752
[1] And it came to pass, when she had ceased to cry to the Lord, that she rose from the place wherein she lay prostrate before the Lord. [2] And she called her maid: and going down into her house she took off her haircloth, and put away the garments of her widowhood. [3] And she washed her body, and anointed herself with the best ointment, and plaited the hair of her head, and put a bonnet upon her head, and clothed herself with the garments of her gladness, and put sandals on her feet, and took her bracelets, and lilies, and earlets, and rings, and adorned herself with all her ornaments. [4] And the Lord also gave her more beauty: because all this dressing-up did not proceed from sensuality, but from virtue. And therefore the Lord increased this her beauty, so that she appeared to all men's eyes incomparably lovely.
Here I could understand that her head was covered but her hair was plaited.
Of course, now it's also making me wonder why she was allowed to braid her hair and we are not. But I realized some people did very expensive and high maintenance braids in their hair. Perhaps that's what the Apostles were concerned about and not necessarily any braid.
I'm learning that I can take care of myself for my husband but not to over-focus on "beauty routines", not to wear masculine clothing (even if they look modest), and if I wear jewelry I keep it simple - including rings related to marriage.
I'm learning the more I am productive at home doing daily chores by hand to make healthier and more affordable food, handwash clothes, and practice being submissive - the Lord is true to His Promise in the Bible that when we imitate the righteous women of old we will receive the inheritance of the Mother of Israel, Mother Sarah, of unfading beauty and we will be called her daughters.
That helped me understand that the Precious Virgin Mary really is our role model and example of a virtuous woman. She is our mother because the Bible told us so.
Connecting to her everyday helped me adjust the modesty of my clothing a lot easier.
She had her head covered too.
Not to mention, my husband who convinced me after opening up to him that I feel very uncomfortable wearing long and modest dresses because I feel it doesn't represent where I come from and it likens me to other religions.
He helped me readjust my mindset to be focused on Christ and not other people's opinions. In the end, it's just a piece of clothing. It's ok to sacrifice fashion for Christ. And it's ok to look different too.
I guess that's what God wants us to do. He wants us to be set apart. Not only in looks but attitude so Jesus Christ can shine His light thru us for other people to understand something He wanted them to know.
I am grateful for your comment because now I will have more einforcement that it's not about following culture or our husbands in false ideas. We have to follow Christ.
In Proverbs 31, the model example of a woman rendered her husband good and not evil. Well, in cooking terms, you render the bacon fat to clarify it, for example.
There was an earlier time, that my future husband told me he thinks all my clothing is pretty modest. My clothes consisted of form-fitting short skirts and dresses. Nothing about it was modest at all. I had to render the good out of him by being an encourager of Biblical values and not the opposite - even if it went against my own desires that were of the flesh and not of the Spirit. That's part of a Christian woman's role - to render her husband good.
I could've taken the easier road and let out a sigh of relief that my future husband liked my very immodest clothing and hid behind him that he's my leader so it's not my problem. But that's lukewarm, no salt, and no Proverbs 31.
Believe it or not, I have no church community so I'm thankful for every reinforcement and spiritual nourishment I can receive on the internet. Thank you for your comment, it's helping me to be strong on my new found foundation in the apostolic church.
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.
@@robertmiller812 very interesting research. I would like to ask you a few questions. Have you ever researched older versions of the Bible? This was something new to me only a few short months ago that there are older versions that shed a lot more light on this topic. If you go to the Bible app, you will find DRC1752 which is the oldest in English, at least that I could get my hands on.
I would be interested to hear your perspective if you ever look up the same passage in that earliest translation. The cool thing about this translation is it is said to be the most word-for-word literal translation of the Bible.
As for your comments about the covering: how do you explain that during worship and prophesying a woman should cover? If it were to be about the length of hair it wouldn't need clarification of the acts of worship and prophesy specifically.
It would just be a general rule of the length of hair.
For example, I was asleep so I wasn't worshipping or prophesying. Would I then not be obligated to have long hair suddenly and i could cut it short? That would make it impossible to suddenly get knee length hair again (the length of hair back then for women) early in the morning when I want to read the Bible.
You also mention the part about length of hair as proving it is only about hair length.
1 Corinthians 11:13-15 DRC1752
[13] You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? [14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? [15] But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
Here the Apostle Paul was making an observation that even nature shows a covering. But do we follow our natural elements or do we go beyond to follow Christ? So he was saying if in nature we see that men tend to bald and women tend to nourish their hair naturally, then take it as a sign that men ought not to cover their heads with a hat while praying and women ought to cover their heads.
The word head is used because we need to understand it is a head covering and not a hair covering. I cover the head, but my long hair can still be shown.
Some do this with a veil, others do it with a bonnet, and others do it with a hat.
It doesn't matter what is used, which is why the word "cloth" is not used. In fact, if you ever do research DRC1752, you will notice the book of Judith where after mourning and praying she took off her hair cloth and put on a bonnet, she braided her hair and left the braids flowing down from the bonnet. Again, the head is covered and not the hair. She had choices of how to cover it, hence, no mention by Apostle Paul on "veil" per se. Different cultures, different faces, different styles.
The blessed Virgin Mary is depicted as a woman who covered her head, although you most always see her with a little hair showing. I'm sure you agree with me that she was a righteous believer and understood what to do 🙏
@@marriage4life893 thank you I 💯 agree with you! It should never be a blind following of a husband or else we might find ourselves losing Christ just to follow our husbands. In that case, searching for peace would be a better option. Perhaps finding a nice style that is pleasing to him and presenting it in a loving manner is all that's necessary. If he still insists, I would pray for humble hearts. A strip of cloth wrapped as a headband to cover the head tied to the back in a bow or a little lace bandana shouldn't cause contention in a marriage built for Christ. That's pretty much all we're talking about here. Of course people could get fancy and do elaborate long scarves but it's not really what is required. Covering the head space is all that is required to show submission to authority over us as Christian women and to separate ourselves from the world.
Whenever someone says, "Scripture is clear," you can be assured that it is not. As for headcoverings, does this go back to a teaching of Christ? Nope, so therefore Paul is writing to something at that particular point in time and that culture.
Even better Paul never mentions the idea of a synthetic head covering he just says a woman ought to cover her head and then the context of the passage refers to hair like SEVEN times (hair 3x directly and shorn and shaven 4x indirectly). I agree there was NO head covering teaching by Christ but neither was Paul talking about it. Read it again with the idea that being covered means to be covered with long hair and to be uncovered is the opposite meaning to have short hair and note how everything starts to make more sense.
I think if people are going to leave a comment they should keep up with the topic at hand. We are talking about the fallacy of a head covering not about Christ being the head of the man.. SMH. Update: This was directed to someone who left a comment but has since deleted it
I appreciate you sharing your view. One thing I’ve come to learn is that when I read the Bible I now understand not everything written to me or applies to me or is meant for me to do. This is why Bible study is so important.
Which part of 1st Corinthians 11:1-16 isn't for you or to 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 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.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 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.
You can do your hair in fancy ways and wear a head covering AT THE SAME TIME.
To which maybe the church that Timothy pastored the women were wearing head coverings but just had too fancy of hair dos to show off.
So Paul didnt need to be address the women to have their head covered but it was written to address their heart of showing off.
In Corinthians, the context is during prayer or prophesying like in a church service or prayer meeting in modern times. I think it wasn’t mentioned in Timothy because it only matters to wear a head covering during a worship service. I don’t have any friends who wear head coverings or see anyone at church ever wearing one. I wear a wide cloth headband and I haven’t talked to anyone about it. I don’t think it’s something to argue over, but the heart of it is good to teach about….submission and reverence. Two things greatly lacking in the church.
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.
Well said. Stay the course. Jesus sees your obedience. Be blessed😊
yay!!! Prayer Time at 11 am EST that's great, can't wait 💌
This is different than what have always thought. I was taught having long hair not the covering itself is what was important. Because of the woman who washed Jesus’s feet with her hair.
I think scripture is really left to a lot of interpretation based on individual beliefs as a whole.
Actually you are right long hair is the covering if one reads 1st Cor 11:15. You are also right that the woman who washed/dried Jesus' feet used her hair so there could not have been some command or rule about keeping a woman's hair under wraps so to speak. The problem people have is misinterpreting the word cover, Paul does not use the words cloth or veil it just says a woman ought to cover her head and if we read the CONTEXT you would note that Paul references hair 6 times. (Long hair 2x shorn 2x and shaven 2x). If context means anything anymore Paul had to have been saying that a woman ought to cover her head with long hair. And if this is confirmed with verse 15 then to be uncovered as in the case for men it means NOT to be covered in long hair or another way to say this is to have short hair NOT bald mind you just short.
1st Corinthians 11 says a woman's hair is her glory. This doesn't contradict the woman washing Christ's feet with her hair. For her to take what is glorious, and use it in such a lowly manner is the exact opposite of the long hair ilk that do just the opposite in the presence of God. So unless we're washing someone's dirty feet with our glory, it's probably best to cover that glory when the glory of God is on display.
.... and who's to say she was totally unveiled while washing his feet?
Either way, Paul speaks of two coverings in the passage, and hair is the natural covering, not the only covering.
Have an awesome day😊
I reread the passage and it does not mention cloth or veil covering at all. Only for women’s heads not to be shaven. I don’t have anything against women covering their hair, but this is just another example of difference of interpretation, beliefs and eventually religion.
@@ladybugmom10 The Greek has two different terms that are used to speak of the two coverings which Paul is talking about. I'd encourage you to study that when time permits.
Also, this doesn't come down to personal interpretation at all. In fact, in 1st Corinthians 11:16, Paul says this practice is established in ALL the churches of God everywhere, not just Corinth. The contentious ones were not obeying the decree.
@@marriage4life893 nope the passage is referring to the head not the hair. Yes in fact both Greek and Hebrew definitions of cover in to be hidden. But the passage is talking about a women’s head. So to cover the head is to use the hair. Again interpretation. I mean no disrespect to anyone who believes otherwise. But I stand by my own statement. Have a lovely sabbath
So sad to read how others mock believers because they do not follow the misinterpretation of a synthetic head covering , by saying that they enjoy seeing them "justify" not wearing a hat. This is a holier than thou attitude and has no place in a true believer. They joke about going to shave their head and pray, that is because they lack wisdom because being uncovered means to have short hair not about being bald.
It is a tragedy that they follow a very badly interpretation of 1st Corinthians I makes me wonder if they misinterpret this what else do they do are they like the Mennonites or Amish and live a very hyper religious life that involves a lot of man made doctrines? Too sad indeed.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter A woman , in obedience to God because she loves God and loving God means obeying God , covers her head when praying or prophesying . As soon as the believer enters a gathering, it is a prayerful time.
@@Miryam-b5k A woman who is obedient to God would not put on a hat they would simply be covered in long hair. You are following a misinterpretation just like many groups like the Jeh Witnses or Mormons etc. Everyone assumes their interpretation is right but when read correctly it mentions nothing about a veil or hat. If you were truly obedient you would recognize the error.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter I searched and got the follwing: "Response stopped
Sent by Copilot:
In 1 Corinthians 11, the original Greek text does not specifically mention a “veil” or a “hat.” Instead, it uses the term “κατακαλύπτω” (katakalypto), which means “to cover” or “to veil.” This term is used in verses like 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, where it discusses women covering their heads while praying or prophesying.
The passage emphasizes the importance of head coverings for women as a sign of authority and respectability, reflecting the cultural norms of that time. The specific type of covering (whether a veil, hat, or scarf) is not detailed, leaving room for interpretation based on cultural context.
If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!"
"Response stopped
Sent by Copilot:
An ordinance is a type of law or regulation, typically enacted by a local government such as a city or town council. Here are a few key points about ordinances:
Municipal Legislation: Ordinances are often used to address local issues and govern the conduct within a municipality. For example, a city might pass an ordinance to regulate noise levels or to ban smoking in public places1.
Authoritative Orders: They can also be authoritative orders or decrees issued by a governing body.
Religious Rites: In some contexts, ordinances can refer to prescribed religious rites or ceremonies1.
Ordinances are distinct from resolutions, which are typically expressions of opinion or policy and are often temporary in nature2.
Is there a specific type of ordinance you’re curious about?
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter I'm not interested in interpretations and never give my interpretation of the Word of God. I am only interested in Revelation. Revelation NOT interpretation .
Just a small thought to add as I have began looking into this: The letter to the corinthians opens by saying "To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ". So Paul knew this letter was to be circulated to many other churches (as his letters often were sent around to help teach other churches), and God knew that we would have this inspired word today. I find the argument that this letter only applies to the Corinthians, or that part of the letter, to be very weak.
Then you missed the point- of course these are to be read by the churches, but this was still a letter written to a specific people addressing responses to specific problems. We must keep scripture in light of its intent. As you would any other document you’d read. 😉
You didn't miss the point at all. Please don't let the creator of the video gaslight you. You were totally correct by using scripture to correct her. Even within chapter 11, Paul says:
1 Corinthians 11:16
[16] Some people may still want to argue about this. But we and the churches of God don’t accept what those people are doing.
The scriptures say to back ourselves up with two or three witnesses, and Paul just said all the churches of God practiced this..... that's more than two or three examples. 😊
Besides, just because it's mentioned once doesn't mean it isn't important. That's an arbitrary false premise people use that isn't based in scripture.
Be blessed, and take note on your studies of this ordinance how much gaslighting, vain philosophy, and push-back you'll get. Stay the course because Jesus is always worthy.
I’d like to know where you got your information regarding the culture of the Corinthian church? With the women rebelling, I have studied this topic very deeply and I’d like to see a reference for this information, as, with respect,I believe it is wrong. I would also wonder why Christian women wore head coverings up until around the 1940’s, then they were gradually phased out with the feminism movement and almost gone by the 1960’s. If the church believed this was a biblical practice up until the 20th century, why do we suddenly think all of church history was wrong about this? I would lovingly encourage you to study this further.
I agree that the host is misinformed about the idea of culture. Paul was clearly showing that what he was preaching was for everyone at anytime.
* Going Outside the Scope of the Scriptures & the so-called “Christian History” ….
Proponents of the head covering often point towards church history meaning that there is “historical evidence” within the church (whatever church that may be) that this doctrine was applied for a very long time. Many proponents insist that women had been wearing a head covering for centuries and that only recently (within the 1900s) did women begin to reject the idea, usually because of an introduction of some evil like the feminist movement as though this somehow supports or gives credence to their false interpretation.
They never consider the fact that about that time more people were getting the word of God into their hands and as a result the possibility that they discovered that the old interpretations, held by many of these contradicting churches, were false. As an example, I recall when I was Catholic, I was shocked when I found the Bible to be contrary to Catholic dogmas. And they claim to have had the true word of God for centuries! It is logical to think that as more people read the Scriptures with their own eyes, they would naturally discover many false doctrines pushed by many sects and even within their own church. So, one cannot just assume that one specific movement or event caused many to reject this or any other doctrine.
Still, many veil promoters will be bold to claim that no Christian or Christian group ever thought that the covering was long hair and not a veil. That such an idea only existed within the last few years. This seems to be a very narrow-minded way to think that no one ever thought that long hair was the covering for over two thousand years. Yet they will declare it as though it were a proven fact but when confronted no one that I have spoken to has been able to logically describe HOW they came to this conclusion with proof. Most people tend to make outlandish claims but never do research to prove these claims.
Another argument is the fact that certain women wore veils, bonnets, or hats in the past is by no means evidence of any kind. One cannot prove that women (in general, not just Christians) who covered their heads in the past did it because they were supposedly following a “Christian” rule. If one must resort to going outside the scope of the scriptures to prove their point, then isn’t it possible that their biblical evidence was likely very thin, to begin with? They often add that many ancient pictures or paintings, whether they be religious or not, show women wearing some kind of physical head covering. But what people did in the past is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches; plus, people wore headwear for all sorts of reasons, and it doesn’t mean that they were abiding by what they interpret the Scripture to mean. The idea (if it can be proven) that more women wore fewer hats or veils today than in the past is not a sign of anything, whether they be Christian or not. It doesn’t prove people were breaking any so-called “biblical” rule if you first don’t prove that there was a rule to break to begin with!
Let me give you a couple of examples that eliminate this logic: The fact that people believed in using CRUCIFIXES, STATUES, RELIGIOUS PAINTINGS, or performed INFANT BAPTISMS or any other “religious” work for CENTURIES does not mean that we ought to accept them. The long time practice of a questionable doctrine is NOT evidence. It should go without saying that these examples are either not in the Bible or in contrast with scripture. False doctrines have been around for centuries; therefore, how can anyone use paintings, photos, or even post-biblical writings to prove their interpretation of Scripture to be correct? All it shows (like crucifixes, statues, and infant baptisms) is that people can be wrong for a very long period. The Bible even mentions the long time practice of temple construction but even though God allowed it ti happen he was NOT in agreement with it as one can easily see God’s disdain of the practice. (Read Acts 7:47-51). The New Testament already mentions several instances where people were misinterpreting the Scriptures and teaching false doctrines. So let’s not act like it would be hard to believe that splinter groups formed and followed their OWN interpretations of which could have spread to other denominations.
Even with biblical facts people will continue to find it hard to believe that the people could be wrong for so long. The thing that I find most interesting is when they throw around the word “church” as if one should KNOW what they mean. The first logical response should be ‘Which church are you referring to? Catholic? Protestant? Anabaptist?’ All of which oppose each other by the way. Who exactly is being referring to when they say “church?” Most of the time people are sidelined by this because they haven’t made any real effort to know what they mean by “church.” And if they start to add certain churches that contradict scripture. I would say, ‘Why are putting your trust in them?’ Then I would explain all the scriptural reasons why they shouldn’t.
Churches that follow a certain doctrine for an extended length of time are not proof of anything unless it stands firm within the scriptures. Our faith should be based on rock-solid verses, not because some churches are following similar beliefs which can be wrong, or the flimsy writings or etchings of man. Therefore, what the people did, however long ago, does not prove that what they practiced was biblically sound.
Amen
This is a little confusing because if Paul wrote “head covering” instead of “hair”, but later wrote to Timothy saying “hair”, then doesn’t he mean two different things? Also, he said a woman dishonors her head if she prays or prophesies without a head covering, for this is the SAME AS shaving her head. He’s comparing two different things? I don’t know, it sounds very clear to me that us women need to cover our heads when praying and prophesying. I don’t want to come off as rude, I’m just confused because I see more women not wear them than women who do. God bless! ❤️
Actually Paul did not actually write the word head covering. If one were to look at the “modern” bible versions one will find a words that never should have been translated that way. I am sure that there are a couple of version that will outright use the word veil but if we were to stick to a more reliable source like the King James Version we will not find the words “head covering” written in this way. We all know that if one were to phrase it in this way one can assume a hat or veil anything that is foreign to the body. But in the KJV it says either uncovered or not covered. In which case “hair” Hanging S the capacity to “cover” the head.
But I can understand that there would be a confusion when it says a woman dishonors her head if she prays or prophesies uncovered, for this is the SAME AS shaving her head. But Paul was not giving us two conditions but giving us two examples. Paul wants women to cover their heads in long hair ESPECIALLY if they are doing anything holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying but not exclusively. What? Are you then saying that Paul was saying that if the woman was casting out demons, or singing unto God, or talking in tongues or interpreting tongues that this is acceptable when to NOT wear a veil SINCE it isn’t EXCLUSIVELY praying or prophesying?
Also, why would not wearing a hat or veil be the same as if she shaved her head? That seems very illogical. But what if Paul was saying that a woman who is uncovered means a woman NOT covered in LONG hair meaning that she has SHORT hair? Which makes sense when referring that men’s heads should not be covered (in long hair because it is to be short). So now an covered head (meaning short hair) is UNDERSTANDABLY someone who looks like her head is shaved. That makes more logic than the lack of a hat equates to one being shaved.
Don't be confused. You're 100% correct and in line with scripture. Be blessed😊
The misconception is that Paul never really said head covering like if it were a noun instead he uses it as a verb. The words "to cover" (aka katakalupto) is correctly used in the passage when it says that a woman ought to cover the head (in the same logic if we were to say cover the feet or cover the hands) and “peribolaiou”, which means wrap around. Since the first word isn't a noun we should not assume anything here or jump to conclusions. But unfortunately for some reason I have been literally told (believe it or not) that it is a fabric or cloth despite the fact that it isn't a noun and that such words are not there to come to that definition. The next question should be can both words apply to hair? Yes if it is long. Long hair has the capacity to cover the head and wrap around. Now of course this is also true for a veil, but we would need strong evidence that Paul was referring to a veil or some kind of headwear. Another question to ask is if there is a theme here. For example hair is written 3 times and shorn and shaven 4 times (KJV) which are evidently associated with the cutting or shaving of hair. I think we can agree that we are not inferring something else that can be cut or shaved here. So for a total of 7 instances we should at least consider the possibility that Paul is talking more about hair than a veil.
If you believe the Word of God is somebody else's mail, then you will only take what you want from it. That is a big problem from the start, because you can now say the part I don't like belongs to them and the part I do like belongs to me. The Bible is written to every generation, and every Word of it is relevant to all of us. This is why Paul wrote, 2Ti 3:16-17 AKJV 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works. So if we misinterpret scripture, or take what we want from scripture, we may be setting ourselves up for judgment. Deu 12:32 AKJV What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Sorry you misunderstood- all of God’s word is used to teach us. But when we read the epistles we remember that it’s someone’s mail. He’s writing to a certain people, at a certain time, in response to certain topics. It’s a note in understanding context of scripture and not making everything about what we want it to be. Context is always key.
Ok, what is the point you are making in regard to 1Cor 11. What do you believe is not relevant for the church today, and why do you believe this?
I discussed it in the video ;)
Maybe this will help you: www.gotquestions.org/head-coverings.html
Do you remember the incident in the garden between Eve and the Serpent when he deceived her?
Deception means we aren't aware of being hoodwinked until the damage is done, and it's too late!
So what do you think that Paul was referring to in 1Cor 11:10?
Adam was under Christ, but Eve was under Adam; but Adam wasn't around at the time, so the Serpent moved right in and took them out.
Had she been covered, this could not have happened.
God has laws that even the Devil and his Angels must obey as we read in the book of Job
I've been watching people "discover" cloth headcoverings for over 30 years now. The divisions it has caused and the behaviors people have exhibited has been purely awful. The judgement people heap on those who don't share their cloth headcovering convictions does NOT come from God. I have found their pride and arrogance to be awful! And I think this "movement" has done a lot to damage the churches. It's like giving an appearance of "holiness" while judging and condemning others and treating them, at times, absolutely hatefully.
Have you ever thought that the vast majority of churches have been nasty, arrogant, and divisive towards the apostles who gave this decree over 2000 years ago? I'm not being dismissive of your actual encounters with those who've had a bad attitude regarding covering. It goes both ways. Some Daughters of God are pushing back against decades of rebellion, which is not an excuse but an explanation. In fact, Paul called those who went against apostolic decree the contentious ones, not the ones obeying the shepherds Christ left in charge until he returns. Right now, it's the contentious ones that have set the standard according to the culture around them. All division isn't bad.
1 Corinthians 11:18-19
[18] For first of all, when you come together in the assembly, I hear that divisions exist among you, and I partly believe it. [19] For there also must be factions among you, that those who are approved may be revealed among you.
Amen you are right. And they still stick to their beliefs using the facts that some churches followed it in the past as though it were biblically true instead of realizing that many people were misled to believe a misinterpreted doctrine. I mean really why focus on the acts of others instead of the bible?
Thank you for your courage to speak on this subject which some people in this thread really go too far with their interpretations of this subject thinking that God really cares about a veil or hat.
3:25 there are no buts. Go back to the very first chapter and read who this letter is for. Make sure you understand that it’s for all Christians for all time and this is a commandment handed down from Jesus and you can study that if you do it really altogether.
Unto the church of God which is at CORINTH, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that IN EVERY PLACE call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's: 1 Cor 1:2
It is true it is for all Christians for all time unfortunately the hostess does make her mistakes but NEITHER are we to assume that "this is a commandment handed down from Jesus" There was no doctrine of a synthetic head covering. You did well in pointing out scripture at first so why swerve now? How about you point to the scripture that Jesus handed down a commandment that women ought to wear a veil or hat I would love to read that.
@@JohnYoder-vi1gj 2Pe 3:15 Consider also that our Lord’s patience brings salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him.
2Pe 3:16 He writes this way in all his letters, speaking in them about such matters. Some parts of his letters are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
@@DarlaGuyton I think I was being clear when I asked for the command that JESUS handed down but instead you quote 2Peter3:15 and 16. Look when you make a declaration like "and this is a commandment handed down from Jesus" one should expect that they are saying this because there is a clear verse that warrants this declaration. But instead you sidestepping by quoting a verse that states about things that would be hard to understand and that some will be ignorant and unstable etc. First of all this is not nice of you to imply that I am in this category when you never gave me the scripture that would support your declaration for me to read and if I get it wrong then maybe this verse would apply. But I was never given the chance to read it. I hope you can see the logic to this unless this was done purposefully so as to unfairly win an argument which I hope is not the case.
Thank you for pointing that out. Please keep standing on the truth.
Colossians 2:8
[8] See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Be blessed😊
@@JohnYoder-vi1gjThank you for your strong stance on Scripture Don’t let those religious zealots on this false doctrine get to you.
“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15).
God bless
I did not idolize my hair before Christ saved me. Once I was saved, immediately I began to read the Bible every day to understand this God I never knew was real. I began to listen to all kinds of sermons and prayed almost constantly. Recently God led me to a church which exposits the whole Bible verse by verse and even though this topic has not been discussed, a few of the women in this church cover their hair and most don’t.
No one, including my husband, encouraged me to cover my hair but as I read the Bible, the Holy Spirit, the word of God, and my praying, and researching it, (basically God) made me realize this is what I am supposed to do during worship and praying. It makes complete sense.
You stated that “…as (you) read the Bible, the Holy Spirit, the word of God, and (your) praying, and researching it, (basically God) made (you) realize this is what (you are) supposed to do during worship and praying.” This is odd because I get the complete opposite.
Not sure what version you are reading but I am reading the King James version. When reading the words verses 4-7 and 13 that say cover, uncovered and not covered, they all come from a variation of the same word in Greek katakalyptō. 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.
The ONLY time we read the word “covering” is in verse 15 which in Greek is peribolaiou which means “wrap around” and long hair most certainly qualifies as it can wrap around the head.
But the usual counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it ONLY 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 are no nouns used 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. As you can see with simple logic and nothing but the Word of God can we see that God was referring to being covered in long hair. Be blessed and stick to Scripture.
@@robertmiller812 Amen
That's such a wonderful testimony. Glory to God! Please keep standing on the truth of God revealed in his Word. Don't let anyone discourage you from obeying the One who saved you from darkness.
Colossians 2:8
[8] See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
Be blessed😊
@@robertmiller812 Amen to that ❣
@@marriage4life893 Thank you!!! Jesus Christ is so wonderful. The verse you posted is perfection. We are so blessed.
Hi Heidi! What about those who do not have "long hair" to cover? Not because of intentional cuttings/shaving/trimming of the hair but because of nature/genetics? For example there are plenty of women who have hair textures that are more curly in nature and it appears significantly shorter than the average woman. Also women who have conditions that cause them to no longer have/grow hair...in these cases, does the same interpretation of hair being the covering apply? This may cause them to unintentionally look less feminine if we are using hair as the determination/measuring stick for feminine appearance. Are you saying that this really boils down to heart issues and as long as we are not intentionally trying to look less feminine- then there is no need to cover? I new to the concept/debate of hair coverings in general so my questions may be off base/already addressed. Just looking for clarification. Thank you so much for all that you share and do to help us grow in our biblical literacy.
The topic of what we wear is in this realm-- do we ALWAYS have to wear dresses? Can we wear pants? Etc... And the point of all of this in regards to our outward appearance is... Is it drawing attention to our flesh in some way, are we using it to make ourselves "superior" to those around us (IE: they see us and are drawn to what we're showing externally vs our internal good), and do we as women look feminine and the men look masculine- for our culture- to show our trusting in God's created order. Hope that helps! XO
What is inside shows outside
Did the video creator actually answer your question?
The point of the passage is the fact that a woman intentionally cuts her hair short like a man, not about the unintentional balding that happens to women who have a medical condition. This is understood because I don’t think there is a medical condition that prevents the man from cutting his hair, right? LOL It would mean that he is intentionally letting his hair grow long, right? So why wouldn’t this also apply to women that they are also intentionally doing the opposite by cutting their hair (aka uncovered)?
Note how easily the Bible explains itself, logically.
@@robertmiller812 Well said!!!
"5 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.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."
Verse 5 and 6 clearly states that covering is done with an external object..for it says if you won't cover your head then you have to shave the head or is equal to the one who has shaved her head...so this conclude that having long hair without cover them in the fellowship you will be just the same as the one who have shaved the head. So long hair is some thing else and a covering is another thin not equal...
But the insist is in the verse 10..
"10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."
Verse 5 and 6 do not mention that the covering is done with an external object. The words covered used in those verses are used as adverbs and not nouns. (in the same logic if we were to say cover the feet or cover the hands) Even the scholars agree that these words are adverbs.
In fact, none of the words used from verses 4-7 and 13 refer to a veil. It just mentions the action of either being covered or uncovered.
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.
The ONLY time we read the word “covering” is in verse 15 which in Greek is peribolaiou which means “wrap around” and long hair most certainly qualifies as it can wrap around the head.
But the usual counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it ONLY 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. Be blessed and stick to Scripture.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT use the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. Some will use the phrase “head covering” to claim that the passage refers to it when this phrase is not found in the verses within 1st Corinthians 11:1-16. One can find them separately but not together to mean a synthetic covering. Therefore, it would be disingenuous to say that it does. The passage includes the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions, then why would Paul say in verse 7…
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue.
Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix.
“For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold.
This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking/attractive) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. The answer of which should obviously be no. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look unattractive and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair while praying looks especially uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). The reason is that they are intermingling the word head in verse 3 that refers to authority with the other word “head” that is being used to refer to the literal head of the human body. One can easily dismiss their interpretation because it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband and that the context includes the idea of hair and the shaving and cutting thereof.
So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. Therefore there are no two coverings just one which Paul refers to as being covered which he means to be covered in long hair.
@@sarahmwasyoge1830 Yes. Thank you for sharing the truth. Keep standing on the truth of God's ways. Blessings to you😊
@@marriage4life893 Glory to Holy spirit who directs us in truth. You are the blessing indeed to be an encourager. Thank you for blessess!
@@sarahmwasyoge1830 Glory to God! He is worthy to be praised.
2 Thessalonians 2:15-17
[15] So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. [16] Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace, [17] comfort your hearts and establish them in every good work and word.
The idea that a head covering is your HAIR,- is taking that entire scripture out of context. I personally don’t cover as of now … but it’s clear your hair is not the covering. It may be a form of covering but not the same covering
If so then men would need to have shaved hair when they worship.
”For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.“ - this would mean men need to be bald …
Why do we say this verse refers to men wearing hats and coverings physically but for men it represents hair??
It would be useless to say “”For if a wife will NOT cover her head, THEN SHE should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, LET HER cover her head.“
1 Corinthians 11:6 ESV
If our hair is our covering that verse would make no sense …
If a woman won’t wear long hair she should shave her hair… 🤔🤔 it doesn’t make sense …
A hair is a type of covering, so let’s also cover to show our submission…
Again not a head coverer myself- it’s something I’m studying still…
Allow me to explain. You implied that if the covering was hair then "... men would need to have shaved hair when they worship.
”For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.“ - this would mean men need to be bald …
Not so. When it says men ought not to cover their heads Paul means not to cover their heads with LONG hair. The opposite is true for women in that women ought to cover their heads with LONG hair. Recall verse 15.
Therefore to be covered means to be covered in long hair and to be uncovered means the opposite aka short hair.
You said" "It would be useless to say “”For if a wife will NOT cover her head, THEN SHE should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, LET HER cover her head.“ 1 Corinthians 11:6 ESV If our hair is our covering that verse would make no sense …"
First of all it doesn't say the word WIFE it says the word WOMAN see KJV. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
If a woman does not cover her head with LONG hair it says let her be shorn (left with a stubble) but if is a shame to be shorn or shaven (razor cut bald) let her be covered (in long hair) In other words let her grow it out long.
You said "If a woman won’t wear long hair she should shave her hair… 🤔🤔 it doesn’t make sense …" So what is the ALTERNATIVE THEN? That if a woman does not WEAR a VEIL let her be shorn? Wow that surely is an extreme action for not wearing a simple veil. So if a woman with long hair simply does not wear a veil her hair should be cut off. Is this what you are in favor of? If you believe this do you enforce this then? If not then why not? If you believe that the passage has to do with veiling I am sure you are not going to pick and choose which verses you will accept or reject right?
Long hair is the covering according to verse 15, so let’s lets keep that hair long to show your submission…
I still do not believe long hair is the covering Paul is talking about.. and if it is WHO DECIDES what is long vs short?
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter
@@SamanthaH Well it is your choice to believe what you want rather than what the scriptures states. Also the idea of what is considered long or short is instilled in the translation of the word "covered" as it states "hangs down" So as long as it hangs down that's what matters. Plus to go further the word covering in verse 15 has a translation of the words "wrap around" so clearly it has that application that the hair is long enough that it can wrap around.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter I have read your comments before it is very gripping and shows the biblical facts that Paul was referring to hair. Could you add your essay that I seen you add in other comments?
@@robertmiller812 Of course. Happy to do so.
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 am thinking about some things and have a few questions. What about the Nazarite vow when men let their hair grow out? Samson for example? John the Baptist did this. I believe Paul/Saul took this vow as well. In Acts 18:18 it says he cut/shaved his head because he took a vow. Some men like Samson and John the Baptist were Nazarites for life. Others took the vow for certain periods. It appears it was culturally acceptable in some circumstances for men to have long hair.
Then I was thinking about Deuteronomy how when a man wanted to take a woman as his wife whom the Israelites had captured from war he first had to shave her head. Also, the cleansing of a leper's body was to shave the hair. Both a man and a woman. So it seems that in their culture, it was done as part of purification/cleansing. It doesn't seem normal for a woman to have a shaved head except in those time frames. I understand Paul was bringing Gentiles into the family and there was a learning curve. Who knows what types of former practices they were a part of?
Yes, if the woman does not have long hair as a covering. God bless, praise Jesus!
This is something that perplexed me. There are many things that have been mistranslated into English. I don’t think the kjv is the only version to be examined. I think we should go to the original translations and try to understand in context from a Jewish Bible. The customary thing was for woman to cover their heads not just have long hair. Our culture is extremely western and modern compared to biblical ways.
Also perplexing is why women should cover their heads because of the angels that part is often overlooked and dismissed.
When I see a woman wearing a head covering I see modesty. I usually notice the woman is very humble and not at all prideful in her demeanor or loud and rebellious. I see different cultures and different branches of bible believers wearing different coverings and it all is out of obedience to their beliefs. I find it rather faithful and admirable. It’s very hard for American culture to understand it unless we open our minds and hearts to the possibility and why is it so difficult for anyone to comprehend that it is biblical and orderly to do, even if it’s inconvenient and hard to find a practical way to wear a covering in todays secular society.
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 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.
Thank you for sharing. That was very encouraging. What the covering represents is such a threat to our rebellious western society.
Keep standing on the truth. Blessings to you😊
1st Corinthians is talking about long hair and the letter to Timothy is talking about putting jewels in your hair there are two separate issues. One has nothing to do with the other
I grew up in a church that wore hats but what i saw as a child was that there was a compensation on who had the biggest and nicest hat.
Never wore a hat sunce leaving that church and being in another one
I think this has become a huge piece in it all, unfortunately.
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
QUESTION:
If a woman already has "short" hair as a covering, how can it be shortrned if she wears not a covering, if her hais is the coverong?
ANSWER: There is a misunderstanding of the explanation of verse 6.
Some are under the impression that one is confused when explaining verse 6 because why would it ask to cut the woman’s hair if it was supposedly already cut? Therefore, this explanation does not make sense as it seems to be repetitive, but this is not being understood correctly. To NOT be covered (aka uncovered) means having short hair but that does not mean that it cannot be cut shorter or shaved off. I have short hair (meaning it is uncovered or not covered in long hair), but neither is it a buzz cut or shaved off bald. Therefore, even though I have short hair it doesn’t mean that it cannot be cut even shorter or shaved bald. So now it is important to understand what shorn and shaven mean. The word “shorn” is the same word used when you shear sheep. A stubble is left behind. And shaven implies using a razor which implies that all the hair would be taken off. Note that the word “shorn” is repeated alongside the word “shaven” in the KJV as if to confirm and clarify that they are referring to extremely short hair that implies seeing the scalp. A quick look at any dictionary will show that these words are synonymous of being bald. Therefore, by mentioning these words side by side Paul would seem to be emphasizing the fact that women with short hair may as well be made bald or almost bald. Therefore Paul is saying is that if a woman is not covered in LONG hair (meaning that her hair is short like a man) let her be shorn, but if it shameful to be shorn or shaven let her be covered in long hair (meaning let it grow out).
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Nice, it couldn't be clearer
WAIT till it GROWS BACK to LONG hair!... Duh!...
Where did you find "has SHORT hair as a COVERING", in the Bible?!?....
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Meaning.... the WOMAN has indeed F R E E D O M to either cut it short, shave it or wear (cover) herself with LONG HAIR, the glory of her head!
Good question.
To all, I recommend Cynthia Westfall's hermeneutical study of these passages in the book Paul and Gender. Being the "head of" is more likely to mean source, like headwaters, and yes woman was taken from man as Paul clearly states, and this was contrary to the godless myths and false teachings that Paul was countering in these passages. This is Pauline theology underscoring why Christ was the only one that could save mankind. Adam sinned knowingly and, as Eve's source, all of humanity fell when he sinned. Fun fact, the term "a symbol of" is not in the Greek (why was this not addressed in the video?), and that passage can be read a woman has authority over her literal head (the Greek is epi). This is why Paul stated nevertheless woman is not independent of man nor man independent of woman, which clearly shows he had affirmed woman's authority for self-modesty because he put in this qualifier. Veiling was a sign of modesty and sexual unavailability in a world where high class men could pretty much have their way with low class people, and it is more rational to believe that the church was struggling with class division and the objection to women veiling who were lower class but wanted to be modest, versus the demand that unveiled women veil. Doesn't logic and knowledge of human behavior to protect one's own place in society make this highly plausible? This is akin to Peter's letter that mentions women not making their beauty about ornate hairdos and costly jewelry. Additionally, there is no evidence that veiling is required for angels to understand order. Rather, it is more plausible that it refers back to one of Paul's preceding statements in 1 Corinthians 6:3 in which he mentions that believers will one day judge the angels and therefore are able to decide trivial matters now, including spirit-filled women This passage supports that female believers are able to decide matters of modesty so that they do not bring shame to themselves, to their husbands/fathers, or to God the Father. The application today is modesty and not calling attention to oneself in worship. The odd woman veiling or wearing a hat would have the opposite affect and call attention in today's culture. Having said all this, I know some will disagree because the hierarchical view has been so ingrained (and indeed Jesus warned about believers lording over others as the gentiles do), but to you I simply say - let us be convinced in our own minds based on the study of scripture.
My favorite part about videos like these is watching the lengths to which people will go to justify NOT doing something for God. Is it a sin for women to not cover during prayer or prophecy? I don’t think so. But if your only goal in serving God is the bare minimum “try not to sin” then I think you should probably spend more time in prayer. That said, I’m going to shave my head and pray. JK, I’ll just take off my ballcap.
And mine is reading the comments on how head covering extremists try to justify wearing a covering when there is no mention of a head covering in the passage in question. There is NO scripture that says one must wear a "synthetic" covering "for God" I wish more people would read and not go along with whatever group they are following that believes in this false doctrine.
it was priests who wore head covering in the OT. what 1 cor 11 talks about was a custom and tradition of those old times. we dont follow the traditions but we follow now Lord Yeshu Hamashiyah. we dont live according to the flesh but in the Spirit now
I went to a Jewish Bat Mizvah years ago and the women in the synagogue wore little coverings on their head. Interesting.
Next time you pray at church be sure and pull it off.
Amen! That’s the conclusion I came to when a friend tried to tell me that I needed to cover my head and wear skirts over my pants because pants are men’s clothing. Context and understanding the history of that town or church is so important. That’s why we shouldn’t just read the Bible but study it with God as our teacher. We should come to God humbly as if we know nothing when studying the Bible .
I would love a video on Christian giving please:)
Wait a minute. You said we're not to get caught up in adorning ourselves with braided hair and jewelry, which is scriptural, but go on to say he doesn't mention covering the head. Then you go on to insert your own idea for women to wear a covering if they idolize their hair, though neither Peter nor Paul use it in that way. Essentially, you inserted your own authority into the text and over the authority of the apostles of Christ, while trying to teach about submission to authority. Unfortunately that is hypocrisy.
Forgive me, but this was all over the place, and made no sense at all.
Please have a good Sabbath
I also think that if a woman believes in wearing a head covering along with their hair, then being consistent in our beliefs is important. Having our heads covered during prayer would mean always being covered if we’re told to be in prayer continuously. Rom 12:12/1 Thess 5:16-18
Would they need to keep a head covering on at all times for anytime they needed to pray?
Exactly- that would be a big difference! SO then was Paul saying ONLY veil when *publically* praying? See... lots to get into here when I think the root is always the deeper meaning. XO
I would argue that yes you can keep a head covering with you for prayer. Mine are from Garlands of Grace and I twist them into my wrist and wear them or at my house I have them in 5 specific places so I always have one nearby. If I don't, I can wear my husband's ball cap that he is taking off for prayer or simply he puts his hand on my head.
Being told to pray continually is pointing to our heart. We all know we don't and actually can't be praying at all times. But our heart should be in the mindset to go to prayer as our first response always.
Being told to wear a covering while praying is actually easy. And perhaps it is supposed to be only in a corporate setting.
The question to ask is when/where do we cover. Not if we should cover.
I also take some issues with the idea of some that our “worship” is in a building on Sunday mornings or whenever we are with other Christians in the building. Worship is our daily life as believers. Therefore, if wearing a covering is required in the building or when we’re worshipping in a group, it’s required consistently in our lives. Romans 12:1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
Need to do it, that is all! Why to fight with God? Respect God and your husband! You will see a huge blessing in it ❤
@@Biomazz5454 God is to be WORSHIPPED with love, not "respected"!.... (see Luke 4:8; 10:27) GOD is ABOVE all! :)
I believe that one should cover their head when praying or prophesying it says
Obviously were not doing this all day so our hair is given for a covering when not praying our long hair show we're under authority and submission as we should be 😊
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.
No worries God will show you the truth if you trust in his words and not in someone else's interpretation. God bless.
Amen! Thanks for sharing the truth. 😊
I wonder; if its shameful for men to have long hair/look like a woman; why is Jesus almost always portrayed as having long hair? Where did that idea come from?
You can find that in 1st Corinthians 11:14 "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"
Although i dont do it myself, i too believe women should cover their head. But none if tge women in tge church i attend wear them. The idea that our hair is our covering doesnt make sense to me. And a question i have is that why do we still practice taking communion as the corinthians did, as talked about in the beginning of the chapter, but then do not practice the wearing of head coverings? Both are in the same chapter. This has never made sense...
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.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 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.
Head covering is talking about a garment. You are to cover during prayer and prophesying. We do need to look at each verse as well. Hair as a covering is not what he is talking about when he says to cover while praying and prophesying. He also mentions that all the churches were doing this. Mike winger has a 6 hour, I kid you not, stream on this. It’s really good. I encourage you to watch it😊
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.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 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-Matter Amen
Thank you so much for that clarity, I needed that 🥰
Therefore, it is okay for men to wear hats (head coverings) in church?
No men should take off hats.
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.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 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.
Could you let me know what version of the Bible you are reading from?
It was my NLT!
Thank you for clearing this topic up scripturally for me. I didn't know where to look. I have been feeling like I was supposed to wear head coverings.
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.
No you were right to question your feelings because feelings are not facts. You'd be surprised how many people care more about some feeling of what they call "conviction" rather than proving a doctrine through scripture. Remember 2 Tim 3:16-17
@@sueeasley1754 You felt like you were supposed to wear a headcovering? That's wonderful! That's exactly what Jesus wants in his church. In the passage of 1st Corinthians 11, it's not the ones who cover who are contentious. It's the ones not practicing who are being contentious. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Please don't let this video or any other comments sway you to disobey Jesus. Be blessed
A few years ago This issue came to my attention so I read up on it. The second to last sentence is the answer: “her hair is given for a covering.” The topic is hair length as a covering for the head. But just like in the subject of modesty (God says dress modestly but does not “draw lines” on our bodies to show how much to cover up), God says a woman should have “long hair” as a covering for her head, but does NOT specify how long it is required to be. And for men it is to be short but scripture does not specify how short it must be as a boundary. Personally I think this is somewhat cultural, and there are obvious levels that would be called “short” or “long”, but no lines are drawn- therefore just like modesty, it is a matter of the heart. But it CLEARLY says “her hair is given for a covering”. So cloth is permitted but not required. Another subject covered by principles in Romans 14.
Really interesting and helpful that you included what Paul wrote in I Timothy! Yes, he would not have mentioned the braiding if the requirement was for women to cover their heads with a cloth covering. I was familiar with those verses but never thought to connect what was said in I Timothy to the topic of covering with cloth. Thank you:)
That is so true. Isn't it great how the Bible confirms things. God bless.
Bottom line wear it or not if you feel led to then do it but its not going to send you or anyone to hell, thats my point
Who came out with the idea of Jesus Christ with long hair ?
Question? Should a man take his hair off before praying or prophesying?
Misconceptions of the Covering.
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.” or something similar like you said.
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.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter I guess those who are BRAINWASHED are also "shaved" since they cannot make any distinction anymore between any length of hair!. Their comments are pure nonsense!
That's a good question. Men always get lost in this topic though Paul addressed them first. It's really unfair. This isn't a women's issue, it's a church issue as Paul pointed out.
What do you think? Can a man wear a hat during prayer and prophecy?
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Thank you for clarifying this often misunderstood verse.
It’s actually part of the point note that men in Corinth wore coverings to pray to the Greek gods and women didn’t
Fingernail polish is one thing i gave up as it is a flashy way to draw attention. Clear looks nice and even prettier.
I do still wear jewelry and struggle with that. Jewelry given to me by my mom is think is fine. But random earings and flashy jewels are probably unChristlike. It's a struggle bc jewelry looks so feminine and pretty.
My take on Jewlery, makeup, and nail polish is a Christian can wear it as long as it doesn't become an idol, become more important than your inner beauty, and isn't against your conviction. I feel so happy for you you're giving up on things you feel convicted on. God bless you and Jesus loves you!!
Why is Jesus portrayed with long hair?
There’s a lot of reason but most goes back to the Catholic artists and the inspiration they took when coming up with these- whether we should use them is another topic. There’s not much accuracy, if any at all, with those images. This might help: www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-long-hair.html
A daughter covers her head to honor her father, a wife covers her head to honor her husband and a single woman covers her head to honor God.
A daughter covers her head to honor her father? The Bible doesn't say that a a daughter covers her head to honor her father. This is a complete fabrication and I suspect that you know it is. The same goes for the rest of your story but at least there is a tiny basis for your misinterpretation of the husband/wife story.
The words “husband,” “wife,” “marriage” or anything similar are not found in the 1st Corinthians Chapter 11:1-16 (KJV, a very reliable version) but veil promoters will claim that that is what they are referring to. This is a classic case of reading more into what the Scriptures are actually stating. But the way it is structured gives the strong impression that it is referring GENERALLY to ALL men and women NOT just married couples. Some people have stated that the words “man” and “woman” are interchangeable for “husband” and “wife” but if we read the context of the passages, we can see that this cannot be the case. For example, verses 8 and 9 delve into the order of creation, which obviously includes everyone whether they are married or not.
“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.”
Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women.
“EVERY man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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.”
You will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts if you were to exchange the words above for husband and wife, because then it would seem like all the single men CAN wear a covering or all the single women can be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure many veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
So, how can one navigate these passages correctly if one were to claim that the words they are reading do not mean what they state? How can one tell when they read the word "man" they really mean "a male person" and not “husband” and the same thing goes for the words: woman and wife? If one were to argue they were referring to married couples, then how one can expect anyone to believe what they read? The logical thing to do is to understand what they mean by the context of the verses and in this case, they are referring to ALL men and women.
Such misinterpretations also give the appearance that they are talking about married women having to cover then doesn't that mean that single women to not apply can be without any cover? So as you can see it makes the whole thing very confusing. So please do not make any more fabricated comments especially without any evidence to back up your claims. Remember God is watching you.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Thank you for your response. When I quote the Bible I always try to give chapter and verse. What I commented was my humble opinion.
Romans 3 : 1 - 7
King James Version
3 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)
6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?
7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?
@@johnbarnesNnaptown Well I thank you for stating it was your opinion because many might think that you are basing this on the Bible. But still I think you might want to premise your comments as opinions, so as to be clear. I try to avoid giving my opinions otherwise people will ask me where I got my ideas from and if they are not biblically based then someone might say then why even mention them? Especially in a supposed Christian chat where people need to hear the word of God. Thanks for clearing that up.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter
1 Corinthians 7 : 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter why would you say the words husband and wife aren't found in the KJV?
Blessings dears sisters and brothers. I respect your explication dear sister, but let me ask you. So when brother Paul ask man do mot pray and prophecy with the the head covered, is that means they have to cut thei hair before praying time?
Pray , because only our Lord can open our hearts and understand the true. I do believe with all my heart , the sisters should cover their head, en specially at church and in the time of prayers
The following is a comment from a well known RUclips commenter named FA that will answer your question:
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.
Good question. Stay in agreement with Jesus and his church. 😊
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.
This is something that has been floating in my head again in recent weeks. I have no problem with head coverings, but it does not explicitly state in the old testament (where this tradition began) that women (or men) need to cover their heads in the church. The priestly garments in Exodus had a hat they wore. But there is no where in the Old Testament that it states anything about women needing to cover their heads.
I agree with the first statement you made, we shouldn't make an entire belief system out of one verse. If you believe it is the case you can make an entire doctrine from one verse then then the church that believes is snake handling isn't far out there. There is one verse that talks about this and some churches made an entire denomination out of it. Most people don't find that wise. In the context of the verse, in Mark, Jesus was talking about the protection of the apostles. So in the context of the verse, Paul was talking about order.
Most people also ignore the part about men not having long hair. Yet, why isn't that talked about as much as head coverings? If you feel strongly out of respect for your husband to wear a head covering in church, then follow your conviction. But in my case, my husband doesn't find that to be a requirement of our faith and neither do I. If he did, out of respect for him, I would do it. I agree with you, this is about order, our roles as men and women, and our respect for our genders and dressing appropriately as men and women.
Does it have to be found in the old testament in order for it to be valid?
@@marriage4life893 Of course not, but where does this tradition for the jewish people come from if not the old testament?
@@alisonwilliams9958 Jews don't practice this tradition. They both cover their heads for a totally different reason, which does not include Christ as the head of man. Christ is nowhere in their tradition.
Also, Paul doesn't give anyone the option to practice this tradition according to if they feel convicted or not. So to leave an ordinance Paul said was custom in all the churches up to people's convictions, kinda defeats the purpose of authority and submission. You can't say it's all about submission and authority when you're asserting your own authority over Christ.
Just want to clarify something here that this so called “tradition” is not practiced by a lot of Christians. Some will have you think it is because of feminism or some other outside source they people do not practice this anymore like it "use" to be..
The fact is Paul never mentions that veil covering was a practice to follow at all.
Paul was saying in 1st Corinthians 11 that women ought to cover their heads with long hair. Apparently, some women were intentionally cutting their hair short when they ought to have kept it long as God intended, thereby keeping the tradition of women having their hair long and men’s short.
Therefore there was no "option" to choose at all. Artificial head coverings was never a doctrine to begin with.
@@marriage4life893 Wait, so you are saying that Paul is laying out a new ordinance for the Christian church that Jesus himself does not mention? Are you also silent in church? Paul mentions that too in 1 Cor. 14:34.
Thank you for speaking on this. There is so much adding onto these verses in certain circles. If he were discussing a fabricated veil, I think it would have been apparent at that time. Why even go into discussion about hair, you know? You explained really well! 😊
And I could very well be wrong, but at this time that is where I also stand. I've gone through seasons of wearing a headcovering and it was during a time where I was engulfed in legalism in many areas. Not saying this is the case for anyone else, but that was where my heart was at the time when I was first introduced to the idea of physical coverings (that weren't hair.)
@@herhomemakingheart 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.
Quran - Doesn't say anything about head coverings, yet most Muslim women wear head-covering.
Bible - Clearly says that women should wear head-coverings, yet most Christian women are even worse, not only do they not cover their hair, but they dress tight clothing and expose their bodies.
Very ironic if you tell me.
Do you have any thoughts on the Sabbath the 7th day thanks and God bless
The scripture is very clear. No gymnastics or academia required its very simple. A veil is a veil and not hair. Do u notice all places tgat grow hair were covered..... men didnt take off that covering until christ.
You are right a veil is a veil. And if the word veil were in the 1st Corin 11 then it would be easy to point out. But obviously it does not say that it says a woman's head ought to be covered and a man's ought not to be covered and Paul simply adds two situations such as praying and prophesying as examples not conditions. Hair easily qualifies as a covering as it is so noted by Paul in verse 15. The problem some have is that one assumes Paul is saying that only under 2 conditions should a woman wear a veil and men not to wear one. But he is not giving conditions he is saying that it would look worse if a man was covered in LONG hair and that a woman would have short hair (uncovered) while doing these holy things looks off. Verse 13 ONLY mentions one of the two alleged conditions why? because it was just an example also why does Paul care about the look when he asks us to judge. A woman without a hat or veil while praying does not look unpleasing in appearance but if to be covered means to be NOT covered in long hair (aka short hair) then yes we can all judge that she does not naturally look appealing much more if she were praying or doing anything else holy or godly.
@FA-God-s-Words-Matter veil and covering are the same and not the hair we are naturally given.
@@LampWaters you say the hair is not the covering but the Bible says it is. Verse 15 says but if a woman have long hair it is a glory to her for her hair is given is given her for a covering.
So what is the covering in verse 15? Her hair, right? But you say it isn’t.
So should one listen to you or the Bible?
The problem is that people do not want to humble themselves when it comes to this topic even when the answer is staring them in the face.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Thank you for sticking to scripture.
Be blessed😊
It doesn’t make sense for Paul to write that a woman should cut her hair off, if she doesn’t want to wear a head covering, if he means the natural hair. That is not logical… why cut it off if he means they shouldn’t cut it off in the first place?
This is great point because if this is allegedly the case, then do those who claim that it is about head covering actually put this into practice? Have they cut women's hair off when they don't wear a head covering? And if not then why not? I can guess that some will make up excuses.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter haven’t met any who had head covering in church, so I can’t say. All I am trying to say is that the possibility with hair as head covering is not what the text says. There might be another cultural explanation that makes more sense.
@@user-rw6op8yb9g
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her...
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering.
-NASB
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
If a fabric covering is actually required,
then all references to hair are
totally irrelevant to the subject.
It only can make sense if the
long hair of a woman is the 'covering'.
She should be covered, with her long hair.
To have short hair, like a man, means that
she is basically bald. Therefore uncovered.
__________________________________________________
and every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, doth dishonour her own head, for it is one and the same thing with her being shaven,
for if a woman is not covered -- then let her be shorn, and if [it is] a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven -- let her be covered;...
-YLT
OR one might say:
and every woman praying or prophesying with very short hair, does
dishonor her own head, for it is just like her head was shaved
and made bald
for if a woman's head is not covered with long hair- then she
should get her hair cut very short, but since it's a shame for a woman to have her hair cut very short or to have her head shaved and made
bald-she really should have her head covered with long hair.
Are you apart of the plymouth brethren, the women there cover their heads during the services.
Hair cannot be a covering, as men are not allowed to cover their heads. If hair were a covering then this would require that men shave their heads daily in order to ensure they weren't covered.
Then why when addressing this for women does Paul, in verse 15, say, “For her hair is given to her for a covering.” That seems clear enough: A woman should cover her head during worship, and her hair is that covering. :)
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.
This is coming at such a timely moment in my life. I am almost done with the book A Cover for Glory. By Dale Partridge and learning about this topic. Thank you for this video!
I’m reading the same book! I’m about 1/2 way through. What are your thoughts so far? And comparing it to this video?
The beginning of 1 Corinthians specifically states the letter is to Corinth and to all saints everywhere. See verse 2, “To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ-their Lord and ours:”
so I disagree with her initial argument that it’s only to Corinth on the island of lesbos.
Not to mention-how can a woman’s hair be shorn for not wearing “long hair” if it’s already short/shorn? That verse would not make sense if head-covering is “long hair.” 🤷♀️
Does Dale Partridge cover this in his book? Just curious. I’ve read a different one on headcovering.
@@everyoneknowsitslindy6074 Many commenters like to bring that question up regarding verse 6 as one person put it in a comment in a RUclips video:
“If a woman doesn’t have long hair let her cut her hair? That just doesn’t make sense.”
In other words, they are under the impression that one is confused when explaining verse 6 because why would it ask to cut the woman’s hair if it was supposedly already cut or short? Therefore, this explanation does not make sense as it seems to be repetitive, but this is not being understood correctly. But if "not being covered" (aka uncovered) means having short hair that does not mean that it cannot be cut shorter or shaved off. I have short hair, but neither is it a buzz cut or shaved off bald. Therefore, even though one can have short hair it doesn’t mean that it cannot be cut even shorter or shaved bald.
What is important is to understand what shorn and shaven mean. The word “shorn” is the same word used when you shear sheep. A stubble is left behind. And shaven implies using a razor which implies that all the hair would be taken off. Note that the word “shorn” is repeated alongside the word “shaven” in the KJV as if to confirm and clarify that they are referring to extremely short hair that implies seeing the scalp. A quick look at any dictionary will show that these words are synonymous of being bald. Therefore, by mentioning these words side by side Paul would seem to be emphasizing the fact that women with short hair may as well be made bald or almost bald.
It would also be very difficult to claim that Paul was speaking metaphorically as hair seems to be the main theme here and the removal thereof repeatedly. Why would he repeat the words shaved or shorn unless he was being literal? I think most of us can agree that having short hair (like in a typical male haircut) is NOT the same as having their hair shorn or shaven aka bald. Therefore, a woman being “uncovered” simply means that she has short hair and that in doing so she might as well shave the REST of her hair off. It’s not that complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
Unfortunately, people tend to get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seem like some kind of headwear but do not consider all the verses that show that “covering” means long hair and that “uncovered” means short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can we conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet, or veil?
1 Corinthians 11 feels like a hinge point and I struggle to have clarity on it. Head covering isn’t mentioned in the OT. However Paul *does* bring up the creation order of Genesis 1. Would he not bring up other OT scripture or law had it been mentioned previously? This is a small part of why I don’t believe this specifically applies to all churches for all time.
No, I do not believe we can pick and choose what we do or do not do. I’m trying to think critically and view this through the cultural lens of the time and refrain from viewing it through my own.
You are right in critical thinking, because some things do not add up. You mentioned that it isn't in the OT and that Paul would have brought it up if it were so. Another is that one would think that both Paul and Peter would have mentioned this when they refer to how women should "adorn" themselves in 1 Tim 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:1-6. That would have been the perfect moment yet they do not mention it. Also another interesting note is that women wouldn’t be getting instructions on how to wear their hair if they were supposed to cover it up., when referring to braided hair. And I have a lot more but the logical conclusion is that sometime after the Bible was written people started misinterpreting scripture and got this idea all wrong, like in other doctrines.
Baptism in the name of the Father, son, and spirit also isn't mentioned in the OT.
The Lord's table also isn't mentioned in the OT.
So, it appears that you're starting from a faulty premise.
16 “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Luke 10:16
1st Corinthians 14:37
2nd Thessalonians 2:15
2nd Thessalonians 3:4-6
1st Timothy 3:14-15
1st Timothy 6:13-14
2nd Peter 3:15-16
Have a great day
@marriage4life893 The typical reason why one would mention that the Head covering is not in the OT (at least for me) is that many have literally told me that it WAS. When it wasn't. I have even been given verses that they have taken to use as evidence when it really had no bearing to a doctrine. So I think there is nothing wrong in establishing this fact in order to understand that it did not originate from the OT. A faulty premise would be that the rejection of such a doctrine was solely based on that. But like hanbloodworth correctly noted that "1 Corinthians 11 feels like a hinge point..." therefore there is NO FAULTY PREMISE due to the OT as 1st Cor 11 is in the NEW TESTAMENT. And that the lack of such a belief in the OT is a "small part" why he does not believe this applies.
Please READ before you make a comment that shows your lack of ability to discern a sentence.🙄
"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;" 1 Tim 2:9 (Where is the veil the woman is to adorn?)
"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;" 1 Peter 3:1-3 (Where is the veil the woman is to adorn?)
TWO great opportunities to mention that women had to adorn themselves with a veil yet neither Paul or Peter thought it was important to ,mention.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim 3:16-17
Before you start quoting Scripture that states we are to follow God's command you should first prove that a head covering was a DOCTRINE at all, as opposed to the fact that it was simply about covering the head with long hair.
Have a nice day.
1st Tim 6:3-4
The wearing of veil is biblical. The problem is that we will not obey the commands of God anymore because of our rebel hearts.
First, The argument of culture does not match the explanation that Paul gives which has to do with the order of creation and not culture. If that was about lesbians and cultures, why does it says that a women praying with her head discovered is dishonoring her husband. Not the church, not society, but her head, the husband.
Secondly, the explanation that long hair replace the veil would make it a word salad which is a waste of time for him to write about: It would sound like that: your hair is a covering but if you don’t want a covering shave your head???? This is not proper hermeneutics. Rather long hair is compared as an ornement. Moses was to cover his head because his face shine of the passing glory of the law. Women are the glory of men and so they must cover their head.
Thirdly, if it has to do with the angels of the Lord, then the argument of culture is irrelevant. As I said, it has to do with glory and headship, not culture. Some things we still do not grasp about heaven and angels so we must obey without fully understanding.
Fourthly, it is a tradition that was practiced across the churches until 50 years ago when we decided that we knew better than 2000 years of Christians.
The bible say that women must wear a mark of their authority on their head. It is when they pray only or prophesy.
It is probably the easiest instructions to follow given to church, but still we cannot obey God because of our hard impenitent heart. Unless you can for sure that this is what Paul meant, which we cannot. We ought to obey. Legalism is not strict obedience to God. That is called obedience. Legalism, is to claim that by adherence to the Mosaic Law, one can save himself.
There is no doctrine about having to wear a veil. The problem isn't that some do not want to obey a command neither about rebellion. The problem is that THIS IS NO COMMAND at all.
I agree that the argument of culture does not match the explanation that Paul gives which has to do with the order of creation and not culture. So if you recognize that it has to do with the ORDER OF CREATION then WHY are you making a push for a manufactured (man-made) veil. You are not being logical. If it started from CREATION then it CANNOT be connected to veils but something NATURAL like long hair. Are you getting the logic?
Then you stated “why does it says that a women praying with her head discovered is dishonoring her husband. Not the church, not society, but her head, the husband.”
That tells me that you are reading from a very bad translation. The KJV says nothing about husbands or wives or even marriage. This is about men and women in general NOT about martial couples. Not only is it illogical AGAIN especially because of the creation argument but you leave room for others to make the argument that SINGLE PEOPLE can be covered or uncovered (depending on the gender) when THEY pray or prophesy.
Paul’s scenario in the 13th verse should be obvious that marital status has nothing to do whether a woman prays while being uncovered, which he asks us to question if that looks comely (attractive). This is in reference to an observation regarding short hair (aka being uncovered) NOT a hat or veil as how does the lack of a hat make her look unattractive unless he is simply saying that the lack of long hair is what he means when he refers to the woman as being uncovered.
To claim that the explanation that long hair replaces the veil would make it a word salad which is a waste of time for him to write about:” is an opinion about time wasting and not a direct
exegesis of the passage.
You should already be aware that it is the head covering movement that actually believes that if you don’t cover your head with a veil that women ought to shave their heads. So let’s get this straight from the beginning. This approach is an extreme interpretation as it implies that the lack of a hat or veil constitutes the implementation of shaving off a woman’s long hair whereas if we are talking about short hair as the scripture leads us to believe it isn’t as extreme as it would already be short.
It is disingenuous to tie in Moses’ covering of his face because it was shining from God’s glory with a woman’s long hair. You talk about word salad well this is full on word gymnastics here by leaping from one place to another. No one said that a woman’s hair which is HER glory according to verse 15 is ever to be covered.
Regarding the “angels” it should be evident that argument of culture is irrelevant. Just like the argument of creation, it should be evident that it cannot be about manufactured objects.
Lastly, it should also be irrelevant if many women wore a head covering. You are now jumping from scripture to non-scripture to make your argument stick. Plus I don’t think people knew better today than nearly 2000 years of misinterpreted practice they were more free from the many churches that pressured them to believe in lies. And before you start making it seem unbelievable to say this there have been MANY doctrines that have been shot down which used to be practiced by many and for many years. Many churches especially that of the RCC have been wrong about a ton of doctrines. To claim time and the amount of people constitutes proof of a doctrine is ridiculous. Then I expect that you follow baptizing babies, or Popes, or praying for the dead, or the mass, or the extreme unction, veneration of saints or angels, the sale of indulgences and more as they are over a thousand years old and practiced by millions.
The facts are that there isn’t any place that clearly defines a woman having to wear a veil.
First you must prove your doctrine to be true before claiming that people are simply not obeying. Which chapter or verse are you basing this on? If you cannot prove or wish not to then I have made my point.
@@GodsWordisTruth-zg1jj I read the greek text.
The word used for covering in the greek text is katakalypto. It litterally means to cover, veil or hide something.
I usually read the ESV in english as it tend to be closer to the manuscripts than any other translation, or the Louis Second in french, but I always look to the greek text when I am unsure of the meaning.
In french, it is translated as veil, from the greek katakalypto.
On verse 15, the word covering, is translated as Peribolaiou, not Katakalypto. This mean, a ornament, something beautiful. The hair as been given as an ornament, something beautiful to the woman.
Therefore the text does indeed command christian women to cover their head in prayer or prophecising, as mark of the authority on their head; their husband.
The argument of order of creation is mentioned at verse 12. Christ is the head of man and man the head the woman. Therefore, because man was created for God, he ought to uncover his head, and because woman were created for man, they must cover their head. I know it is not fitting with today’s mentality, bust we must obey God, not the world. Paul mention also at verse 16: if anyone is contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
Regarding Moses veiling his face, because of the fading glory of the old covenant, this is mentioned in hebrew. I would also suggest that the mention of the angels in 1 Corinthians 11 might be referring to the account in Genesis 6 but I am not sure if this is related or not.
One thing that I am sure is that the meaning of it is much more than just a command on hair length. Some thing have not been given to us to comprehend now, but we must still obey and we’ll understand in heaven.
The greek texts are to be referred to when the translations are not clear.
I exhort you to read it, and pray on it.
May God enlighten you.
@@user-hy9oo4cb8u Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around”. In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the condition first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai.
The entire context of this discussion about authority and headship, and the hierarchy established by God, includes a discussion of long hair on women and short hair on men. There is never a mention of a piece of cloth. Consider: the veil is a man-made device to cover a God-given, natural state. It is an imitation of what God has already provided. The cloth veil was a common article worn by both men and women of the desert lands. It served a practical purpose in that it protected the head, hair, and face from the relentless hot sun and the blowing sands of the desert. It was not commanded by God but was a practical invention. As the centuries wore on, it became a custom among certain cultures and religions. God does not bind man-made customs upon His people as immutable law (By Bernie Parsons)
I also exhort you to read it, and pray on it.
May God enlighten you also.
@@GodsWordisTruth-zg1jjShould we be also naked or dressing extravagantly since God commands are not about a man made objects? Yet we are still called to modesty. Yet woman are called to adorn themselves with humility and not with jewels or extravagant hairstyle by the apostle.
Also God commanded woman not to dress like men and he commanded men not to dress like women in the law. Yet, clothing are manly inventions. God commands are about man-made things also.
God commanded landowner in the law to pay a tithe out of their flocks or fields. Yet agriculture is a man made thing too.
Jesus also commanded his disciple to give one of their coat to needy persons if they had two, yet this is a piece of clothing. With everything including our clothing also, we are called to honor the Lord.
The didascalia apostolurum which is a ancient church set of rules (I hold it by no mean as inspired, but it gives historical perspective) from the 4 century prescribe wearing of head covering by women during worship which seem to point out that in early church, it was probably an actual rule. Clement of Alexandria (150-215), in his Pedagogius which date of late second century CE also mention that rule. So it seems that as early as the 150-200 CE, this has actually been the rule across a wide range of churches.
Even today, in most countries outside of the western world, christian women follow that rule up to today.
We will not agree on this because I am convinced that the Lord is commanding this and you are convinced that he is not. Let us act with convictions and be at peace.
But I would propose this test: let say that we found out that he was indeed commanding this. Would you then obey or refuse to obey? And I do not ask this to provoke you; that is a good test to subject one’s heart to, as we are indeed called to test ourselves to see if we are walking in the light.
May God preserve you.
Ps. I will read Bernie Parsons, I just found the article you did mention.
Thank you for standing on the truth. It's very encouraging to read. God bless you.
Love this teaching
It's false
Amen!
Very good explanation sister!
The video I’ve been waiting for!!!!!❤
Amen, Sister!