un-VEILING the truth | Should Christian Women Headcover?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ค. 2024
- I thought I'd answer my most asked question in my first TH-cam video!
These are a couple reasons why I decided to start headcovering, its by all means not a deep dive into the topic but it might shed some light for those who dont know much about the practice:)
A couple of other resources:
What does Kephale mean?
th-cam.com/users/livepHxJblq_...
Christian headcovering history
www.scrollpublishing.com/stor...
All the headcovering debates
• All The Head Covering ...
An orthodox christian view on headcovering
• Video
The history of baptists and headcovering
sovereigngrace.ddns.net:81/His...
00:00 short history
04:28 scripture
07:07 why headcover?
07:28 because of headship
10:37 because of the angels
11:54 because of nature
13:01 what is the covering?
15:50 headcovering in practice
![[4K] BABYMONSTER(베이비몬스터) “FOREVER” Band LIVE Concert “영원히” 베몬만을 사랑하게 되…💗 [it’s KPOP LIVE 잇츠라이브]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TQfC0xdpiw4/mqdefault.jpg)
i’ve definitely experienced fellow brethren trying to convince me i’m wrong about head covering. even if it’s not commanded, i feel lead by the Spirit to cover during worship and prayer. i also don’t want to receive unwanted attention or distract others in service that don’t cover, so i use a regular bandanna :> would love to see practical ways to apply this!!
I am a man. But you inspire me to seek further obedience. God bless you
I am a baptist as well and I veil like you and all of the women in my church veil as well
We truly believe it is biblical
That's wonderful 🩷 I've never heard of a Baptist church that still veil
@@sofialjndr in my country Lebanon almost all the baptist churches veil
Thank you for your video. I've just recently started head covering for worship and prayer at home. It's very encouraging to see those much younger than me deciding to follow this practice as well. :)
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 your message with such love. Many decades ago I attended a church that "REQUIRED" all women to cover their heads after your second visit in the church. The covering was only required while we were at church. The idea was certainly not presented in a spirit of love. It came with more of a dominating spirit. After leaving that particular church I did not cover for many years. Then the Oct. 7 war started. As I began to pray and fast, I felt led to return to basics. In my reading and studying I revisitied 1 Corinthians 11, as well as the verses that encourage us to pray without ceasing. If we are to pray without ceasing and cover our heads while praying, head covering makes sense. Since November 1, 2023, I have covered my head. I have had a few women approach me and inquire. My gentle response to them is to remind them the scripture says it is for each man to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. Once we establish that understanding, I go on to share my covering story. Before closing I ask them to pray for me as I continue to work out my salvation. I offer to pray for them as they work on their salvation. I have no regrets and feel protected and calmer.
Your advice to women about deflecting attention if they decide to cover was very wise.
Reasons for head covering
So the very first reason for head coverings is because of the created order. This is the foundation that Paul said “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3). This is not a cultural argument, but a transcendent argument as the Fathers headship is eternal and unchanging.
Because the ordinance of head covering is for certain times (verse 4-6), demonstrating a removable covering. (verse 6) It was to be worn during certain times (prayer and prophecy, or worship). This is not possible with hair. A man (men were instructed not to cover their heads) cannot remove his hair then put it back on when praying is done! “If a woman will not” demonstrates the covering was removable.
Because a woman’s hair (length according to the individual) is for her glory. (verse 15) Part of the purpose of the head covering is to veil this glory, not showcase it. Individual glory is the LAST thing any should want in the Presence of God!
Because this creates quite a quandary for women who cannot grow “long hair.” Think of Alopecia or some African women. Can they still pray and prophesy in certain settings? Regardless of hair length though, a covering can still be worn.
Because of the way verse 6 would read if we substituted “hair” or “long hair:” “If a woman will not [have long hair], let her cut her hair short…” Huh? She would already have done that! The whole point of that verse is to show the shame of her not covering.
Because it would be very odd if her symbol of authority in the presence of angels (v10) was one that gave her glory (v15), since the biblical testimony of angelic worship is not glory for angels, but angels showing humility and covering themselves. (Isa 6:1-3)
Because the Church agreed with the simplicity and power of this teaching for 1950 years, from the time of Apostles (v16) through the mid-Twentieth Century (1950-60s). We only began to disobey these precepts on a large scale when feminism hit the West like a tidal wave.
It is wonderful that you recognize and appreciate the tradition of women covering themselves out of modesty, a practice that dates back thousands of years to figures like Saint Mary. Take a look at how Muslim women cover themselves - there is a profound reason behind it, as it allows for a sense of honor and respect, especially when we are in prayer. It also serves to protect women from unwanted attention. May God bless you for understanding and acknowledging this.
John 14,21: Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me.
You are truly a believer, beloved sister! It suits you very well. May God be with you and bless you. Ignore the unbiblical comments, those people were never christian in the first place. Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 7:21-23
God bless you! You know more about this subject than our modern theologians and preachers. It’s shameful what they have done to the church on this topic and so many other levels.
this was the most informative video I've watched on Christian veiling!!! Thank you!!!! :)
Thank you for this video! I have been looking into the question of veiling lately and have been looking for a cohesive commentary on this subject and yours is the first fully comprehensive video I’ve found.
Definitely look up Mike Winger’s discussion on the covering.
I'm very happy that you make your first video on TH-cam!❤❤❤ very good job 💕💖😊
Im glad you liked it 😊
Great video! I recently watch a video discussing the different words in Greek used in 1 Corinthians 11 to describe the physical head covering as opposed to the word used to describe hair as a covering. Fascinating!!! Might be interesting to dig into.
Thanks for sharing!
If thr covering is hair a man would have to shave his head to pray. We can make up all kinds of stuff to not walk in obedience. It is truly a blessing!
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 TH-cam 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. God bless.
Nice try but the scripture clearly says LONG hair on men is what’s dishonoring to God, it makes perfect sense and if the covering is supposedly a veil why did the priests in the OT wore the mitre, why were they covered, you see it’s not about placing something on your head but rather the length of your hair.
@@wendymtzc Unless I am missing something but it sounds like we are in agreement. I agree the scripture clearly says LONG hair on men is what’s dishonoring to God. And if the covering is supposedly a veil then why did the priests in the OT wore the mitre (aka bonnet), why were they covered?
In other words if women were the only ones to wear something on their heads then why were certain men allowed to?
I totally agree that it is not about placing something on your head but rather the length of your hair. I'm in complete agreement. Praise God.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Mattermay I ask something about a vail or head covering?
What you state,is that old or New Testament because I’ve read this but cannot remember what part of the Bible it was AND I thought after Jesus died it was also so important because all these things people had to do to be heard from god we’re no more because CHRIST was the way to be heard by god, not any of the little “tricks” people did to be heard or to be more holy ect ect . Like when the vail in the church was ripped it signified that there was no more this and that rule to speak to god, but three Christ you were heard?
Please tell me if I’m incorrect on my interpretation!
Because I feel a head covering , or not..male or female, to pray is not necessary to be heard by god AFTER Jesus died. (If this timeline I’m thinking of truly is the timeline)
Not saying throw out all of gods rules but some things are Old Testament and have no need to be done anymore correct?
@@virginiaWT4237 You are correct in several things: 1) The veil being ripped signified that there was no need to follow the Old Covenant which included the priests as mediators as Christi with the new covenant became the one mediator for all.
During the lifetime of Jesus, the holy temple in Jerusalem was the center of Jewish religious life. The temple was the place where animal sacrifices were carried out and worship according to the Law of Moses was followed faithfully. Hebrews 9:1-9 tells us that in the temple a veil separated the Holy of Holies-the earthly dwelling place of God’s presence-from the rest of the temple where men dwelt. This signified that man was separated from God by sin (Isaiah 59:1-2). Only the high priest was permitted to pass beyond this veil once each year (Exodus 30:10; Hebrews 9:7) to enter God’s presence for all of Israel and make atonement for their sins (Leviticus 16). When Jesus died, the veil was torn, and God moved out of that place, the temple and Jerusalem were left “desolate” (destroyed by the Romans) in A.D. 70, just as Jesus prophesied in Luke 13:35. As long as the temple stood, it signified the continuation of the Old Covenant. Hebrews 9:8-9 refers to the age that was passing away as the new covenant was being established (Hebrews 8:13).
2) It is logical to assume that the Old Testament or Covenant have no need to be done (or followed) anymore.
“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” Hebrews 8:7z.
“In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” Hebrews 9:8-13
As for the head covering there was no doctrine for head covering in both the Old or New Testament except for the Jewish priests who had to wear a bonnet “And for Aaron's sons thou shalt make coats, and thou shalt make for them girdles, and bonnets shalt thou make for them, for glory and for beauty.” Exodus 28:40. Since there was no such head covering doctrine for women that one could scripturally quote then one can easily dismiss the idea. The reason it has any significance in the religious Christian world is all due to a misinterpretation of 1st Corinthians 11 that most likely occurred many years after the Bible was written when men began to create denominations and church rules. Many of these rules are still followed today (like veiling) and others have been quietly ignored.
I've been studying this passage for the past week (inductive method and greek interlinear), tracking the early church history and the history until nowadays and it becomes more and more obvious that Paul is talking about veils and not hair, also not culture, but God's order. Also "because of the angels" which we don't know what exactly he meant, but is fear enough to obey even without understanding. I started head covering at home (starting small) and while I noticed it can definitely become a slippery slope for legalism (like you mentioned), when done with prayer and asking for the Lord's guidance and correct heart posture it's a miracle what changes happen within your character. Watching several testimonies of ladies who headcover I can definitely see the biblical femininity taking place (meekness of spirit). It is so beautiful to see this rare thing in today's world. One thing I struggle with understanding is if this passage applies to only married women or is it for every woman - I'd say it goes beyond marriage as it talks about creation. I've talked with my Bible teacher (who is also a theologian) and he says it is only for married women (I don't agree, but I also want to stay teachable in case I'm wrong). I'm not married and was called by the Lord to stay like that and be only for Him. I consider myself married to Him and I'd like to honor Him with the best I can. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this ❤ May the Lord bless you, dear sister! 🙏
You're wellspoken!
God bless you!
Great presentation and something to be aware of, thank you.
Ive been back and forth on this matter and continue to pray for guidance. Here is where i am personally in my journey. Although ive come to realize that i do not have to physical cover my head with anything. I have been convicted to do so to be in humility. Thise who dismiss the power of your heart and state of mind when deciding to headcover may not understand how someone (me) can feel a sense of protection and reverance. I see it this way people buy clothes for several reason an analogy i use is to compare clothing and how tgey make us feel. For example a sexy or cute clothes can make someone feel different. And if we can put on garments and feel different then why do some people dismiss or even try to argue about head covering and how it can affect the way you see and carry yourself.
Nonetheless i am grateful for all who talk about it and give their stance. Some will find their answer based on where they are and thats fine too.
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.
This is lovely and challenging!
Thank you Anna!
id like to note that the conversation on whether a woman should wear a head covering comes after the conversation of salvation, and a headcover doesnt determine salvation.
that being said, its a shame that there arent more God fearing Christian woman like you at your age. I think every Christian man should strive to marry one like you.
Yes, Amen! This is a conversation firstly for women who are alreadyy saved. It would hardly make sense to anyone who wasn't saved anyway. Salvation is always the priority with unbelievers 🤍
This! I’ve been covering for about a year and I’ve learned so much about God and about my Bible.
In dating for married I think of who I am who I want to become
then how would that ethos be lived out by a woman in respect to her Temperament & Feminine nature
Christianity is a recent development for me after over a decade as a "Occultist" to put it mildly
My road to Chastity started before my thought of being Christian
Theology of the Body & Catholic Doctrine on Chastity helped give
language(& expand) to the experience & practice
Same goes for managing other passions, Book of Job, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs helped
Also writings of Saints, Doctors, Mystics like St. Teresa of Avila
or writers like G K Chesterton or Dietrich von Hildebrand & his wife Dr. Alice
Having a Choleric-Melancholic temperament you can imagine how helpful this is
especially with my pride
I favor a woman practicing daily Headcovering (doing it outstand of prayer/Mass)
At a Latin Mass it'll actual be abnormal for me to see a girl without a veil during mass, but that during mass
I haven't seen headcovering outside of a religious context
I'm ok with her tattoos & not legalistic about ALWAYS cover hair
(I joke about mostly converting a Gothic Witch or some Medieval European history Major that's obsessed with dressing wearing Historically outfits then make her my wife),
but in the vein of cultivate my pietas, holding outward reminders of who we worship & are called to be
I'll like for the aesthetic to match the path
I shaved off my viking hairstyle & tossed my beloved goth clothes away, even though many were fine, it's what they meant to me & why, which was the issue
I been seeing that more christian women are starting to embrace veils/headcovering
so I'm less pessimistic
Where do you get your head coverings?? How do you keep them on?
Excellent!
you are so well spoken! i enjoyed listening to what you had to say and i look forward to future videos 🫶🏻
Thank you so much 🌷
for the people that say “your hair is your covering” that’s not necessarily true. 1 Corinthians 11 talks about how a woman covers and uncovers her head when she prays. you can’t take off and put your hair back on your head and if hair were the case then why do men take off their hats when in church or praying?
Well you may disagree but the Bible says otherwise: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 1 Corinthians 11:15. To say that the hair being the covering is not necessarily true flies in the face of Scripture and God. You should retract your statement and more importantly repent before God.
@@robertmiller812i will not retract my statement because it is true. hair IS our covering, but the verses before are talking about another covering. our hair is our natural covering given by God, but we cover and uncover our head with a veil.
@@emilymburtt But that is not what you stated that it is untrue that the long hair of a woman is her covering and I proved that it is. Now you are saying that it is. You should then rewrite the first comment to reflect what you are saying now. Also where does it say "another covering" or veil? You are trying to make distinction between hair and veil by saying that the hair is the natural covering but Paul is not making any distinction he is clarifying what he was talking about since the beginning. I hope that you will at least point to a verse where it says veil or another covering.
I’d love to see how you make the headcovering stay in place - does it have to cover the ears to stay in place? Is there a way to keep it in place behind the ears?
I use a no slip headband.
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.
It is dishonoring God. Dale partridge says that it's shameful.
@@Bringbackheadcovering I do not recognize the authority of Dale Partridge I only adhere to God's words. Plus it says that the woman uncovered dishonors her head. According to the Bible the woman;s head is the man Um, where does it say that that it dishonors God. Verse please.....
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter you state that yet you've called my use of scripture not enough proof. Dale partridge is a commentator. You don't read books written by pastors to further your education upon God?
God is the ultimate head ship. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
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.
If God is the head ship of man and man the head ship of woman. It would also dishonor God's head by dishonoring your husband's head.
@@Bringbackheadcovering People in Africa probably never read other people’s books, Are they then stifled from knowing more about God? Your logic is extraordinarily bad when thought through. Would you also include those in the first century church since they had no one (Christian) in the beginning writing their own books to review? You see how ridiculous that sounds?
You said it would also dishonor God's head by dishonoring your husband's head. First of all you are trying to slip in something that is NOT in the KJV. It doesn't say HUSBAND. You are not talking to a babe in Christ. I am not going to allow words that are not in the Bible to be slipped into the conversation as though I won’t catch them. You really need to stop being so sneaky this is not the way a Christian ought to behave.
If it says that such and act would dishonor her head which is MAN it doesn’t say her head’s head. This is going beyond what the scriptures say and is a very thin argument.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter there are Missionaries like myself who go to Africa and give these people the word. My husband and I and many may others.
That's not ridiculous at all. GOD gives us commentaries to help us further understand his word.
You sound like a Babe in christ. This passage is obvious talking about a husband and God. Unless you support homosexuality. The Bible states that the head of woman is man ( husband's, fathers, pastors) and the head of man is christ.
You're the one behaving in an unchristian manner! These passages can and are used to speak about a marriage. It says the head of woman is man and then it further goes to say that not being covered dishonoureth our heads... that isn't going beyond what scripture says that's literally what it says. Stay blind if you want to. You will be judged for your lack of faith.
So beautiful Sister 🤍
Thank you 🩷
One thing I have trouble with is interpreting what 'praying and prophecying' means, like, when all should I cover?
If you believe that you should cover, you can refer to this verse where we are told to be in prayer continually:
“Pray without ceasing.” 1 Thes. 5:17
* 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.
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 was such a lovely video, please continue to make more! You have a new subscriber over here ☺️ I hope we get to see a new video from you soon! ❤
She's married. I checked. 😆
Thank you for saving me time
😂
Culture or Commandment? It is neither. When Paul says a woman's head ought to be covered he is saying that it should be covered in long hair. So there is no commandment for wearing a cap on a woman's head. The few who think that it is a mandate tend to regard the word cover to mean something more, when it is just mean to cover like as a adverb it cannot be assumed to be a cap or veil. This is where people divide one says it means a cap when the noun is no where to be found while the other says it refers to long hair based on verse 15 and other words that refer to hair.
The word kalupto which is covering in greek literally translated to veil or conceal.. it is a covering but it isn't a mandate or a law. It's more of a advisory.
@@Bringbackheadcovering katakalupto means "hanging down the head" and 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 and is not equivalent to the word “covering”, which is a noun. Therefore, he is NOT SAYING “wearing a hat”, or “wearing a covering” - hat and covering being nouns. Besides it is quite evident that Paul is referring to the long hair that covers the head as the surrounding verses continuously point towards that.
@@robertmiller812That's not what the word is used, though. The word used in this sentence is kalupto Which means to Vail or to conceal something. This is the direct term that is used by Paul to describe a covering inverse 5. And six.
The word Anakalypto Is the word used to describe uncovering which literally translates in english to discover something. Or to uncover something so in the text. Paul isn't talking about cutting your hair he's talking about taking something off.
@@robertmiller812But the surrounding VS really don't point to hair at all. The only verses that point to hair is verse fourteen and fifteen and those verses are talking about the difference between a man and a woman and modesty. Paul tells us the basis of the context in verse 3 is about spiritual headship. He's establishing the headship of woman and man.
Now I am in no way saying you're wrong because , as she says in the video , people can interpret this different ways , meaning this really isn't a doctrinal issue because some things in the bible are just not doctrinal issues like head covering or wearing dresses or pants , for instance. Or whether you believe the Earth is flat or the Earth is round. It would, however, be a doctrinal issue if I believed that you could not be saved if you did not wear headcoverings. However I was saved and not wore them so I don't believe that. But I do believe that it is a submission issue and it is a way of knowing that we submit to our husband's. But in turn once again just because a woman decides not to wear them doesn't mean she doesn't submit to her husband it's a interpretation deal.
I probably won't comment again because like I said it's not a doctrinal issue so either way it's not worth arguing
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. The Bible already tells us what the covering is.
That's not the same covering. Verses 1-13 is talking about spiritual headship verse 15 is talking about appearance or modesty!
@@Bringbackheadcovering Yes it is you can't just separate verses one has to understand it all together. "The sum of thy words is truth" Verse 15 is not about appearance or modesty. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. It basically about facts.
@@JohnYoder-vi1gj its not my place to argue being a woman and you a man. I follow 1 Timothy very seriously. But i will leave you with this.
Verse 3 is the establishment of Headship. Verses 1-13 is based on WHT will dishonor headship.
Verse 15 states that a womans hair is her physical covering. So that is the basis of modesty.
It's very easy to understand this.
Please pray and ask for guidance. Peace be with you. GOD BLESS.
@@Bringbackheadcovering Regarding verse 3....
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. It is true that this has to do with headship and may be used as a basis for who dishonors who. Ok so far.
Verse 15 states that a woman's LONG hair is her covering. But you are adding the idea of modesty. If you were to read the definition of modesty you will note that it isn't the issue here. You are claiming that it is the basis of modesty but that is simply your interpretation. I think it is evidence that it is just making several factual statements. I think it is very easy to understand but you should pray to God to not allow one's own personal biases or thoughts to mix in. I hope this helps God bless you too.
@@JohnYoder-vi1gj if you want to believe that, that is your choice. Like I said it is not my place to argue with a man as 1 Timothy states. But I do not agree with you.
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 1st Cor 11:15 Keep studying God will show you.
Reasons for head covering
So the very first reason for head coverings is because of the created order. This is the foundation that Paul said “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3). This is not a cultural argument, but a transcendent argument as the Fathers headship is eternal and unchanging.
Because the ordinance of head covering is for certain times (verse 4-6), demonstrating a removable covering. (verse 6) It was to be worn during certain times (prayer and prophecy, or worship). This is not possible with hair. A man (men were instructed not to cover their heads) cannot remove his hair then put it back on when praying is done! “If a woman will not” demonstrates the covering was removable.
Because a woman’s hair (length according to the individual) is for her glory. (verse 15) Part of the purpose of the head covering is to veil this glory, not showcase it. Individual glory is the LAST thing any should want in the Presence of God!
Because this creates quite a quandary for women who cannot grow “long hair.” Think of Alopecia or some African women. Can they still pray and prophesy in certain settings? Regardless of hair length though, a covering can still be worn.
Because of the way verse 6 would read if we substituted “hair” or “long hair:” “If a woman will not [have long hair], let her cut her hair short…” Huh? She would already have done that! The whole point of that verse is to show the shame of her not covering.
Because it would be very odd if her symbol of authority in the presence of angels (v10) was one that gave her glory (v15), since the biblical testimony of angelic worship is not glory for angels, but angels showing humility and covering themselves. (Isa 6:1-3)
Because the Church agreed with the simplicity and power of this teaching for 1950 years, from the time of Apostles (v16) through the mid-Twentieth Century (1950-60s). We only began to disobey these precepts on a large scale when feminism hit the West like a tidal wave.
@@barryallen119 Ooh!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!!! i was recently convicted to wear a head covering, but i didn't understand the reason. i covered anyway coz i received many confirmations from the Lord that He wanted me to cover. i began to study and research deeply into all the different aspects i could think of: culture, history, era, time, place, etc. i've been learning Greek, and since i wanted to understand the conviction, i've since been studying the Greek in deep depth for these verses.
Everything made 100% sense to me because the original Greek texts refelct everything so perfectly that it is unmistakable! That is until i reached v15! v15 in Greek blew my mind! 🤯 i couldn't understand why Paul would go into such detail and it all make perfect sense and be so obvious that women should cover, then go ahead and say nevermind everything i said prior coz you're born with it. i was like, uuhhmmmmm 😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶😶.........😮💨 hahaha. So i've been covering and not knowing if this is temporary or lifetime. i mean, it's clear to me the Lord is asking it of me, so until He reveals to me that i shouldn't cover, if ever He reveals that, i will cover 😊
i've trusted and followed what i believe the Lord wanted me to do. i've still covered as i study more and research. i'd way rather cover and find out i didn't need to, than not cover and find out i should've been! It is not going to hurt me to cover 😃 in fact it has taught me so much humility, trust, and obedience thus far.
Anyway, thank you so much!!! i've been asking the Lord, like, whyyyyy verse 15 Lord??? i just don't get it! Rabbi, please explain coz i want to understand.
But i've been continuing to listen even though i don't get it, coz perhaps the whole point is that i don't need to fully understand His ways in order to obey, right? We're supposed to obey even when we don't understand, follow when we can't see, trust our High King, Creator of the universe, and obey in revrence, knowing that we were not there when He formed the foundations of the earth, nor can we comprehend it. Thus i do not have to comprehend in order to obey. Simple dimple, easy peasy.
Jesus says, Go untie the colt and bring it here, and we simply go get it, no questions asked. Equivalent of, Go get that guy's car, bring it here, and if he asks tell him don't worry he'll get it back coz I said so. And we just go get it, and trust that b'coz the Master of the universe told us to, dude we never met who never met Jesus will let us have his car!
So, all that to say, thank you for the breakdown! The more i dig in, the more in understand, and i haven't gotten anything but green lights from Him, so, not stopping! 😃🙌
@@kiyomima-ro3209 You are welcome, sister! God and the Angels will be delighted in your obedience and pursuit of holiness.
@@barryallen119 Awh, no one has ever said such a thing to me, thank you. i'd rather be complimented this way any day than to be complimented on anything physical. i enjoy how lovely it rings to be a delight to the Lord! ✨️✨️✨️
You talk about hypocrisy and reference 1 Timothy, but aren’t you violating that just by making this video? Seems like it says pretty clearly you’re not supposed to teach and you “must be silent”.
Also; if it says a woman must have a covering on her head, but then says she must have long hair as her covering, it seems to stand to reason that a woman with long hair is covered at all times by default.
You are right to question this interpretation to head covering here is a short take on this subject.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “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.
No because those verses are talking about leadership in a church.
The covering over ones hair isn't about modesty like hair is. It's a symbol of submission
@@Bringbackheadcovering"...leadership in a church."?? What verse do you think says that?? It never mentions about church or leadership in a church. You are imagining things it was simply about women keeping their hair long and men short. If you are referring to the part that mentions something about headship. That is something true for all mankind not only in a church setting.
@@Bringbackheadcovering The Bible does not say "covering over ones hair" The covering is the thing that Paul means that covers the head. So to "rephrase" it to give it the illusion that it was something that covers "hair" is disingenuous, since that would work in your favor of a hat or veil. But Paul was clear that it covers the head which hair has the capacity to do. Please refrain from switching God's words around.
oi, sofia! sigo-te no instagram e descobri que você tem um canal no youtube, que legal! saudações do Brasil! 🇧🇷🤍
you spoke so well about everything! i dress modestly and i would love to start with headcovering, but my family (especially my mother and some of my siblings) see it as something horrible, weird. just by dressing modestly, i already get bad comments from them, so i don't know how to summon the courage to take another step (to headcover). how did you start? how to create the courage to do what is right?
finally, i wish you a great week (it's saturday when i write 😊)! God be with you. 💙