Radical statements, in a radical context, in a radical sermon, given at a radical conference. And yet, all Biblically sound --- and, therefore, to be hated by the world. Excellent work, gentlemen!
@@robertmiller812 You obviously have poor reading comprehension. 1 Corinthians 11:15 DOES NOT say long hair is the covering. Instead of relying on translations with a lack of specificity about the type of head covering, how about defending you claims using any of the ASV, CEV, ERV NAB, NLT, or NRSV. Do you really expect us to believe that you know more about what the text means than the scholars involved in making those translations???
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Not sure why you are denying that 1st Corinthians says that long hair is the covering. It literally states that: 1 Corinth. 11:15. "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." KJV The enemy has blinded you that you cannot even reaor understand this simple passage. Scholars, pastors and thousands of Christians have noted this verse and understood it to mean that the covering is the hair. You really need to avoid those versions you mentioned ASV, CEV, ERV NAB, NLT, or NRSV. They are corrupted versions that deny Jesus’ divinity, denies the trinity, removes the belief in Hell and have removed many verses that when you try to find them it is either blanked out or written down in the footnotes. I don’t expect you to believe me but I expect that you should read up on why those versions are no good. There are BOOKS on this or didn’t you know. I don’t understand why you put your trust in men like the supposed scholars you mentioned. Scholars have denounced other scholars with evidence. I suggest you chill out and read more.
@bereanwithabth8554 Not sure why you are denying that 1st Corinthians says that long hair is the covering. It literally states that: 1 Corinth. 11:15. "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." KJV The enemy has blinded you that you cannot even reaor understand this simple passage. Scholars, pastors and thousands of Christians have noted this verse and understood it to mean that the covering is the hair. You really need to avoid those versions you mentioned ASV, CEV, ERV NAB, NLT, or NRSV. They are corrupted versions that deny Jesus’ divinity, denies the trinity, removes the belief in Hell and have removed many verses that when you try to find them it is either blanked out or written down in the footnotes. I don’t expect you to believe me but I expect that you should read up on why those versions are no good. There are BOOKS on this or didn’t you know. I don’t understand why you put your trust in men like the supposed scholars you mentioned. Scholars have denounced other scholars with evidence. I suggest you relax and read more.
I attend a Bible Baptist Church. My theology is Calvinist. I find the manner of dress (and the response to my manner of dress) among the women to be strange in Baptist churches. Maybe it is a Midwest thing…but Baptist women mostly dress unattractively at church - poor fitting, sporty to the point of masculine clothing, sometimes very, very short hair, flip-flops, very little, if any makeup. We do not do head coverings, which I think is fine…BUT many of the women who do not take much care with their appearance seem very sad. They do not strike me as well cared for by their husbands. Their appearance seems to affirm a kind of depression and poverty…that I don’t think exists (the poverty, I mean) in most cases. I dress well - not flashy or sensually, but taking care with my (thrift shop but matching and in good condition) clothing. I am in my late 50s and my hair is to my waist. I do not subscribe to the idea that women past child-bearing years should be manly. I was born a woman and will be a woman all of my life. I am chided as “fancy” sometimes, by the women. I was raised that dressing well for church was respectful. I smile and carry on. I want people to know that I am well treated by my husband and I am happy to be a woman and especially happy to be his woman. He is a good provider, so I do not dress slovenly. I wish unattractiveness was not considered synonymous with Godliness. Immodesty can also be a habit of parading wealth. I am not doing that either- no gold or diamonds or designer clothing…just feminity. Very controversial, as it turns out. The world is a mess.
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.) ...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes, scriptures outside of Corinthians mostly Essay by another: post length 7 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary.
@@8784-l3b Instead of relying on translations like the YLT and their lack of specificity about the type of head covering, how about defending you claims using any of the ASV, CEV, ERV NAB, NLT, or NRSV. Do you really expect us to believe that you know more about what the text means than the scholars involved in making those translations???
@@8784-l3b Well said! Pay no attention to Berean as he is not nice. You are not even making a case that the YLT is a superior translation but yet he gets all bitter and angry simply because you didn't mention his favorite translation. So his accusation against you is baseless. What a weirdo.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions for them to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered no one disputes this but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. As I mentioned earlier some will lay claim that they must be referring to a physical head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. Allow me to expand on this if you will because this is very important. If you are going to make the argument to prove your point that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible supposedly claims that women ought to wear a veil based on two conditions, then it is only logical to understand that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one; for example: if the woman is speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should deny this, meaning that the woman should wear their “veil” under other conditions then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. Please note that the belief in women wearing veils for many groups hinges on this “two-condition” argument because if there were actual conditions then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. But keep in mind that it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off. Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil 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 he not be covered under any condition because of verse 7? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, we should be asking when they are referring to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV If the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s the case, then to be uncovered would mean to have short hair. If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. * You Should Naturally Know Right from Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is very important so please don’t dismiss it. Be honest with yourself do YOU really believe that the average person will look at an unveiled, praying woman and naturally think a VEIL is missing? Are we to assume that Paul expected the average person to have instilled within them the idea that a foreign object is missing from a woman? I have never seen or heard anyone say something like: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head?” after looking at a long-haired, praying woman. To so do would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. I think can say with some assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a woman with short hair especially if we are looking at their backs to confirm whether the person was male or female. It seems like a natural reaction especially when we were young. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong: whether it be OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (a.k.a. short hair) while praying or OBSERVING a man having long hair. In addition, by using the word “NATURE” one can’t even use the excuse that perhaps they were expecting only Christians to see something different. Clearly, if “nature” teaches us that something looks off then it must be including all of mankind as nature teaches all of us both Christian and non-Christian. I would like to also add that these verses are NOT jumping from the discussion of a “veil” in verse 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in verse 14 like some would like to argue because you will note that verse 15 refers again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” is to mean “long hair.” Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses are referring to hair length. By this, we can understand verse 4 which states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered as I previously mentioned. I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due to the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is exclusive to two conditions instead of seeing them as two examples. As mentioned before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Why need a covering for your covering? But what about when they say the church has historically interpreted the head covering as mandatory, why is that and why did it end?
@@GS15460 I agree why need a covering for your covering. In this case why would a woman need a synthetic covering when God already gave woman long hair for a covering? The main issue most have is what is the covering when it says "covered" "not covered" "uncovered" etc? For example allow me to show what they mean by being more descriptive in 3 verses: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (aka not covered in LONG hair) dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven (makes sense if she doesn't have long hair as it would logically be short and in a way seen as "shaven"). For if the woman be not covered (in LONG hair), let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered (in LONG hair). For a man indeed ought not to cover his head (meaning covered in LONG hair), forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. Basically covering means to be covered in long hair and to not be covered means to have short hair, note how that flows with the other verses that actually spell out the word hair. "what about when they say the church has historically interpreted the head covering as mandatory, why is that and why did it end? First we need to establish who are "they?" Because when speaking to a variety of people on this topic I get different answers as to who they deem as "the church" or the authority they think has the truth. if we take certain doctrines and ask what the meanings are to different and opposing churches we would get different answers. Many Churches have been following all sorts of false doctrines for centuries. So should we accept this doctrine if some (whether they oppose each other or not) agree to this doctrine? Should we brush aside verses that don't seem to measure up to this doctrine that several churches have accepted? Even Jesus said that there will be groups that will preach a different gospel and another Jesus. We read how that some were preaching that the resurrection had already past. According to the Bible some who think they are believers have and will preach false doctrines. Recall Acts 7:47 how people were wrong about building temples, God was against it and angry about it. Yet they were allowed and that for many years. (Note the intensity of God's displeasure) So in your honest opinion given the warning Jesus and the other disciples gave us and how the Bible gives good example of how people can be wrong for a long time why can't this be one of the many errors that we are suppose to expect even from those claiming to be brothers? Now some will lay claim that the head covering ended due to the feminist movement (which is no doubt bad). But to blame on people’s rebellion a few hundred years ago is not exactly a scientific or thoroughly thought out way to determine the reason why some women stopped wearing hats. One can argue that due to the modernization of work people did not need to be outside that often. Also, one can argue that more Bibles were getting into people’s hands and can read for themselves that the covering of the head meant covering it with long hair as so noted in the scriptures. But most people don't offer solid evidence, when they boldly claim this as though it should be obvious. We should still keep in mind that we should follow the scriptures and not allow outside issues to dampen the facts.
Troll. Instead of relying on translations like the KJV and their lack of specificity about the type of head covering, how about defending you claims using any of the ASV, CEV, ERV NAB, NLT, or NRSV. Do you really expect us to believe that you know more about what the text means than the scholars involved in making those translations???
This isn’t a jab at pastor Doug , if Doug ask you a question and you answer covenant you have a 98.7% chance of being right lol . And I think we all should be that covenant minded . It has open my eyes
Should a man wear a head covering? Just as women should cover their head to show they are submitting to their spouse, then men should cover to show they to need to submit to God. If he has chosen Jesus as His Lord, then he should show that commitment by wearing a head covering, just as women show their submission, so should man. The difference is not the head covering but who wears it and when. In Deut. 6:8-9, God tells us to apply the Ten Commandments on our forehead, then, when Jesus tells us to "keep" also His words, we apply the Sermon on the Mount to show our commitment to The Father and The Son. A man should never wear a head covering, in church, if they haven't chosen Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. They are not to submit to any man, company etc.. They have to remove their head covering before entering a church etc.. To not wear a head covering simply shows that you have not chosen in whom you shall serve. If a woman is married and the man has not committed to the Lord then she also should not cover, for then she would be usurping the man's authority. A woman should be covering her head, the man in her life. Every child of God should cover with The Father or The Son, or even the Holy Spirit. The scripture shows that all three would be what we should strive for. To keep using different translations is what keeps us going in circles. Choose in whom you shall serve, then stick with it.
I noticed that you are all over the place trying to push the idea that men should wear a head covering except when in church. To be honest you are not going to get too many converts here not even from the legalistic head covering movement who only care that women wear something. But I see from your comment that you have several flaws in your logic. First of all you are under the mistaken idea that “…women should cover their head to show they are submitting to their spouse…” Nowhere in Scripture are you going to find that idea, especially if you read from the KJ version. In that version it never uses the word spouse or wife or husband. Paul’s teaching was meant for everyone both married and single. Proof of which is in verses 8-9 when it mentions the reason a man should not be covered and that a woman should be is because he is the image and glory of God that woman came from man (order of creation). Therefore, this is more than enough proof that this is not concerning one’s marital status. You also make a non-scriptural reason that because the woman is covered so also should the man be covered to “show they need to submit to God”. This is definitely not taken from any scripture. You seem to be making things up as you go. You seem to have created a doctrine that if the man “…has chosen Jesus as His Lord, then he should show that commitment by wearing a head covering…” But there is no scripture that backs this up so I don’t understand why you would even say this? Then for some reason you have taken Deut. 6:8-9 and arbitrarily combined that with Jesus saying that one should keep his words, even when there is no reason to connect the two. Then you make another doctrine that “To not wear a head covering simply shows that you have not chosen in whom you shall serve.” This is borderline heretical that you are imposing a doctrine that if a man does not wear a hat or veil or whatever it is you are thinking that he has not chosen to serve Jesus. This is a cause for concern because not only are you making up a doctrine, but you are playing with God’s plan of salvation. I seriously suggest that you repent of this folly as you have no proof to back up your claim and the enemy is playing with your mind. I will be praying for you.
Happy Reformation Day
Radical statements, in a radical context, in a radical sermon, given at a radical conference. And yet, all Biblically sound --- and, therefore, to be hated by the world. Excellent work, gentlemen!
Blessings Jack!
Its about to get more radical. Long hair is the covering....1st Cor. 11:15
@@robertmiller812 You obviously have poor reading comprehension. 1 Corinthians 11:15 DOES NOT say long hair is the covering.
Instead of relying on translations with a lack of specificity about the type of head covering, how about defending you claims using any of the ASV, CEV, ERV NAB, NLT, or NRSV.
Do you really expect us to believe that you know more about what the text means than the scholars involved in making those translations???
@@Berean_with_a_BTh Not sure why you are denying that 1st Corinthians says that long hair is the covering. It literally states that:
1 Corinth. 11:15. "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." KJV
The enemy has blinded you that you cannot even reaor understand this simple passage. Scholars, pastors and thousands of Christians have noted this verse and understood it to mean that the covering is the hair.
You really need to avoid those versions you mentioned ASV, CEV, ERV NAB, NLT, or NRSV. They are corrupted versions that deny Jesus’ divinity, denies the trinity, removes the belief in Hell and have removed many verses that when you try to find them it is either blanked out or written down in the footnotes.
I don’t expect you to believe me but I expect that you should read up on why those versions are no good. There are BOOKS on this or didn’t you know. I don’t understand why you put your trust in men like the supposed scholars you mentioned. Scholars have denounced other scholars with evidence. I suggest you chill out and read more.
@bereanwithabth8554 Not sure why you are denying that 1st Corinthians says that long hair is the covering. It literally states that:
1 Corinth. 11:15. "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." KJV
The enemy has blinded you that you cannot even reaor understand this simple passage. Scholars, pastors and thousands of Christians have noted this verse and understood it to mean that the covering is the hair.
You really need to avoid those versions you mentioned ASV, CEV, ERV NAB, NLT, or NRSV. They are corrupted versions that deny Jesus’ divinity, denies the trinity, removes the belief in Hell and have removed many verses that when you try to find them it is either blanked out or written down in the footnotes.
I don’t expect you to believe me but I expect that you should read up on why those versions are no good. There are BOOKS on this or didn’t you know. I don’t understand why you put your trust in men like the supposed scholars you mentioned. Scholars have denounced other scholars with evidence. I suggest you relax and read more.
I attend a Bible Baptist Church. My theology is Calvinist. I find the manner of dress (and the response to my manner of dress) among the women to be strange in Baptist churches. Maybe it is a Midwest thing…but Baptist women mostly dress unattractively at church - poor fitting, sporty to the point of masculine clothing, sometimes very, very short hair, flip-flops, very little, if any makeup. We do not do head coverings, which I think is fine…BUT many of the women who do not take much care with their appearance seem very sad. They do not strike me as well cared for by their husbands. Their appearance seems to affirm a kind of depression and poverty…that I don’t think exists (the poverty, I mean) in most cases.
I dress well - not flashy or sensually, but taking care with my (thrift shop but matching and in good condition) clothing. I am in my late 50s and my hair is to my waist. I do not subscribe to the idea that women past child-bearing years should be manly. I was born a woman and will be a woman all of my life. I am chided as “fancy” sometimes, by the women. I was raised that dressing well for church was respectful. I smile and carry on. I want people to know that I am well treated by my husband and I am happy to be a woman and especially happy to be his woman. He is a good provider, so I do not dress slovenly. I wish unattractiveness was not considered synonymous with Godliness. Immodesty can also be a habit of parading wealth. I am not doing that either- no gold or diamonds or designer clothing…just feminity. Very controversial, as it turns out. The world is a mess.
I wish you would have gotten into the head covering subject. I would have loved to have heard your interpretation.
(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.)
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her...
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
My thoughts: post length 7 minutes, scriptures outside of Corinthians mostly
Essay by another: post length 7 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians
Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary.
@@8784-l3b Instead of relying on translations like the YLT and their lack of specificity about the type of head covering, how about defending you claims using any of the ASV, CEV, ERV NAB, NLT, or NRSV.
Do you really expect us to believe that you know more about what the text means than the scholars involved in making those translations???
@@8784-l3b Well said! Pay no attention to Berean as he is not nice. You are not even making a case that the YLT is a superior translation but yet he gets all bitter and angry simply because you didn't mention his favorite translation. So his accusation against you is baseless. What a weirdo.
So sad to watch the guy is misled I think due to years of being involved in a very strict sect.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions for them to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered no one disputes this but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
As I mentioned earlier some will lay claim that they must be referring to a physical head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. Allow me to expand on this if you will because this is very important.
If you are going to make the argument to prove your point that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible supposedly claims that women ought to wear a veil based on two conditions, then it is only logical to understand that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one; for example: if the woman is speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should deny this, meaning that the woman should wear their “veil” under other conditions then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
Please note that the belief in women wearing veils for many groups hinges on this “two-condition” argument because if there were actual conditions then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. But keep in mind that it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off. Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil 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 he not be covered under any condition because of verse 7?
Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, we should be asking when they are referring to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered."
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
If the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s the case, then to be uncovered would mean to have short hair. If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
* You Should Naturally Know Right from Wrong by Just Looking….
If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to:
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is very important so please don’t dismiss it.
Be honest with yourself do YOU really believe that the average person will look at an unveiled, praying woman and naturally think a VEIL is missing? Are we to assume that Paul expected the average person to have instilled within them the idea that a foreign object is missing from a woman? I have never seen or heard anyone say something like: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head?” after looking at a long-haired, praying woman. To so do would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. I think can say with some assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a woman with short hair especially if we are looking at their backs to confirm whether the person was male or female. It seems like a natural reaction especially when we were young.
Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong: whether it be OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (a.k.a. short hair) while praying or OBSERVING a man having long hair.
In addition, by using the word “NATURE” one can’t even use the excuse that perhaps they were expecting only Christians to see something different. Clearly, if “nature” teaches us that something looks off then it must be including all of mankind as nature teaches all of us both Christian and non-Christian.
I would like to also add that these verses are NOT jumping from the discussion of a “veil” in verse 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in verse 14 like some would like to argue because you will note that verse 15 refers again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” is to mean “long hair.” Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses are referring to hair length. By this, we can understand verse 4 which states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered as I previously mentioned.
I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due to the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is exclusive to two conditions instead of seeing them as two examples. As mentioned before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Why need a covering for your covering? But what about when they say the church has historically interpreted the head covering as mandatory, why is that and why did it end?
@@GS15460 I agree why need a covering for your covering. In this case why would a woman need a synthetic covering when God already gave woman long hair for a covering? The main issue most have is what is the covering when it says "covered" "not covered" "uncovered" etc? For example allow me to show what they mean by being more descriptive in 3 verses:
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered (aka not covered in LONG hair) dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven (makes sense if she doesn't have long hair as it would logically be short and in a way seen as "shaven").
For if the woman be not covered (in LONG hair), let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered (in LONG hair).
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head (meaning covered in LONG hair), forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
Basically covering means to be covered in long hair and to not be covered means to have short hair, note how that flows with the other verses that actually spell out the word hair.
"what about when they say the church has historically interpreted the head covering as mandatory, why is that and why did it end?
First we need to establish who are "they?" Because when speaking to a variety of people on this topic I get different answers as to who they deem as "the church" or the authority they think has the truth. if we take certain doctrines and ask what the meanings are to different and opposing churches we would get different answers.
Many Churches have been following all sorts of false doctrines for centuries. So should we accept this doctrine if some (whether they oppose each other or not) agree to this doctrine? Should we brush aside verses that don't seem to measure up to this doctrine that several churches have accepted? Even Jesus said that there will be groups that will preach a different gospel and another Jesus. We read how that some were preaching that the resurrection had already past. According to the Bible some who think they are believers have and will preach false doctrines. Recall Acts 7:47 how people were wrong about building temples, God was against it and angry about it. Yet they were allowed and that for many years. (Note the intensity of God's displeasure) So in your honest opinion given the warning Jesus and the other disciples gave us and how the Bible gives good example of how people can be wrong for a long time why can't this be one of the many errors that we are suppose to expect even from those claiming to be brothers?
Now some will lay claim that the head covering ended due to the feminist movement (which is no doubt bad). But to blame on people’s rebellion a few hundred years ago is not exactly a scientific or thoroughly thought out way to determine the reason why some women stopped wearing hats. One can argue that due to the modernization of work people did not need to be outside that often. Also, one can argue that more Bibles were getting into people’s hands and can read for themselves that the covering of the head meant covering it with long hair as so noted in the scriptures. But most people don't offer solid evidence, when they boldly claim this as though it should be obvious. We should still keep in mind that we should follow the scriptures and not allow outside issues to dampen the facts.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Amen
Troll.
Instead of relying on translations like the KJV and their lack of specificity about the type of head covering, how about defending you claims using any of the ASV, CEV, ERV NAB, NLT, or NRSV.
Do you really expect us to believe that you know more about what the text means than the scholars involved in making those translations???
This isn’t a jab at pastor Doug , if Doug ask you a question and you answer covenant you have a 98.7% chance of being right lol . And I think we all should be that covenant minded . It has open my eyes
Should a man wear a head covering?
Just as women should cover their head to show they are submitting to their spouse, then men should cover to show they to need to submit to God. If he has chosen Jesus as His Lord, then he should show that commitment by wearing a head covering, just as women show their submission, so should man.
The difference is not the head covering but who wears it and when. In Deut. 6:8-9, God tells us to apply the Ten Commandments on our forehead, then, when Jesus tells us to "keep" also His words, we apply the Sermon on the Mount to show our commitment to The Father and The Son.
A man should never wear a head covering, in church, if they haven't chosen Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. They are not to submit to any man, company etc.. They have to remove their head covering before entering a church etc.. To not wear a head covering simply shows that you have not chosen in whom you shall serve.
If a woman is married and the man has not committed to the Lord then she also should not cover, for then she would be usurping the man's authority.
A woman should be covering her head, the man in her life. Every child of God should cover with The Father or The Son, or even the Holy Spirit. The scripture shows that all three would be what we should strive for.
To keep using different translations is what keeps us going in circles. Choose in whom you shall serve, then stick with it.
I noticed that you are all over the place trying to push the idea that men should wear a head covering except when in church. To be honest you are not going to get too many converts here not even from the legalistic head covering movement who only care that women wear something. But I see from your comment that you have several flaws in your logic.
First of all you are under the mistaken idea that “…women should cover their head to show they are submitting to their spouse…” Nowhere in Scripture are you going to find that idea, especially if you read from the KJ version. In that version it never uses the word spouse or wife or husband. Paul’s teaching was meant for everyone both married and single. Proof of which is in verses 8-9 when it mentions the reason a man should not be covered and that a woman should be is because he is the image and glory of God that woman came from man (order of creation). Therefore, this is more than enough proof that this is not concerning one’s marital status.
You also make a non-scriptural reason that because the woman is covered so also should the man be covered to “show they need to submit to God”. This is definitely not taken from any scripture. You seem to be making things up as you go.
You seem to have created a doctrine that if the man “…has chosen Jesus as His Lord, then he should show that commitment by wearing a head covering…” But there is no scripture that backs this up so I don’t understand why you would even say this?
Then for some reason you have taken Deut. 6:8-9 and arbitrarily combined that with Jesus saying that one should keep his words, even when there is no reason to connect the two.
Then you make another doctrine that “To not wear a head covering simply shows that you have not chosen in whom you shall serve.” This is borderline heretical that you are imposing a doctrine that if a man does not wear a hat or veil or whatever it is you are thinking that he has not chosen to serve Jesus. This is a cause for concern because not only are you making up a doctrine, but you are playing with God’s plan of salvation.
I seriously suggest that you repent of this folly as you have no proof to back up your claim and the enemy is playing with your mind. I will be praying for you.