Same sister💕 he’s doesn’t like it uncovered. Some of us don’t know and some of us are being disobedient and some just don’t know but the Holy Spirit can work with us all.
@@milanwrld 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
@@WESTON5628 Hello brother. I disagree. Isaiah and Ezekiel describe a different covering. Covering is only for prayer and prophesy. The covering you talk about is a different one. The passage from the prophet Ezekiel describes both grown (not uncovered hair) and fashioned breasts. Such is the point. We read 1 Corinthians 11 that women are not to cut their hair, so the grown hair cannot be a reference to women. "Thine hair is grown" can only be described about the ones God did not provide with long hair - men (refering to 1 Corinthians 11 also, Verse 14; indeed, Samson was forbidden to cut his hair by God, but that was an exception to him being a Nazarite). This passage also tells a lot more. The issue was not that the ladies stopped cutting their hair... there was a lot more: " But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was. And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: the like things shall not come, neither shall it be so. Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them, and tookest thy broidered garments, and coveredst them: and thou hast set mine oil and mine incense before them." (Verses 15-18) Isaiah 47 is a similar one. This time directed to Babylon, but this may make. We are not exactly told what the nakedness is here. Multiple things are being uncovered, multiple things that make the man lust after her: "uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh". There have been discussions regarding this. But we can suggest that the uncovered thigh is the nakedness. The locks can be seen as such also, at least under prayer, but I do not believe it is the nakedness being described here. If it was, grinding the mill would likewise be a part of the nakedness.
A lot of people don't realize that, until very recently, it was almost expected to wear some form of head covering when going out in public. No scarf or hat was usually reserved for time among friends or, if you're a man, inside a building or home.
My granny was born in 1914 and died in 2008, she never went out without a headscarf. But she didn't go to church, it was just considered indecent. She never wore a pair of trousers either.
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald.
Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ-their Lord and ours. Fore those who says that the word from Corinthians 11 is only for the Corinthians.
The Lord has been dealing with me about not wearing make up, wearing only dresses, and then a few months ago to cover my head. It has been a process that He started years ago but finally got very strong about it January 2018 and He told me strongly only dresses and no make-up. It started years ago as I read the scriptures and could see what the scriptures said but the church would say, about head covering that it was a cultural thing but the truth is when you hold the scriptures up to the modern day church the church looks nothing like the scriptures. So to answer your question the Lord just spoke to me in my heart and said cover your head. 1Corinthians 11:5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. (I pray all the time so I felt I should cover all the time because I never know when I might have a word from the Lord or break out into full blown prayer.) Also: verse 10 says: Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. ( Which refers to Genesis 6. ) Genesis 6: 1-2 Now it came about, when men began to multiple on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God (Angels) saw that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whom ever they chose. Genesis 6 goes on to explain that Giants were born from these unions between angels and the daughters of men so that the blood line of man had become corrupt but Noah's line had not been corrupted that's why God flooded the earth. So Paul refers to this in 1 Corinthians 11:10. Peter also refers to Genesis 6 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgements; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; Also Jude refers to Genesis 6 in Jude 6 - And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the Judgement of the great day, ( so we cover our heads because of the angels , it is a sign of God's authority over us and a warning and reminder to the angels to keep their selves from touching or lusting after us.) Jude who was the natural brother of Jesus talked about Enoch prophesying in Jude 14, I wondered how Jude knew that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied about anything because all the Bible says about Enoch is that He pleased God and was no more because God took him. Well it turns out that there is a book of Enoch and I have read it and Jesus Himself quotes out of the book of Enoch as well as the disciples. In Enoch chapter 6-21 it goes into great detail about Genesis 6. So this is how God convicted me about covering my head. Also Watching this video caused me to remember that growing up woman did cover their heads especially at church. I remember wearing Easter bonnets to church.😇
@@loispappademos4369 very well said but Jesus had no brothers. Jude was a cousin---the aramaic language had no word for cousin so all were considered brothers. If Jude was a true biologic brother of Jesus then a great fight and scandal would have occured at the Crucifixion when Jesus entrusted His Mother Mary to St. John. A mother according to Jewish law of the day, was the inheritance of the son if the husband was gone. If Jude was Jesus' brother then he should've inherited Her but he didn't. She was given to St. John therefore, Jesus had no biologic brothers. He was a cousin.
@@sharont6184 Yeshua Jesus had many brothers and sisters. Mattew 2:25 says that Joseph kept her a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to a Son. Mary did not die a virgin. She did have other children but you are right that after Joseph's death the care of his wife went to the oldest son, then by custom after Yeshua died His mother was to go to the next in line, so that's why from the cross Yeshua entrusted His mother into the hands of John His beloved brother in the Lord. Remember that He said in Mattew 12:48 "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And stretching out His hand toward His disciples (this included John), He said, Behold My mother and My brothers! " For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother." He also said in Luke 11:27 While Yeshua ( Jesus) was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which you nursed." But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." So it is those who hear and observe the word of God who are His brothers. His natural brothers were not believing in Him until after He died and rose again. John 7:3 For not even his brothers were believeing in Him. Matthew 13:54-57- He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were all astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers."Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James (which is actually Jacob, everywhere you see the name James in the New Testament it is actually Jacob, King James did that)and Joseph and Simon and Judas (actually Judah)? "And His sister's, are they not all with us? (Yeshua Jesus did have brothers and sisters)Where then did this man get all these things?" And they took offense at Him. But Yeshua (Jesus) said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household." Actually if you think about it, if the Son of God says to John, she is now your mother, no demon in hell could stand up against His words, no matter tradition. 😇
@@loispappademos4369 yes, i understand all that but a "brother in the Lord" didn't fly in Jewish law. John was not a biological brother to Jesus. John was also the youngest of the Apostles so Jude was older correct? If Jude was a brother as you say, then why wasn't there a big family fight at the cross over who was to inherit the Blessed Virgin Mary? And the word "until" was used to prove her virginity. It does not say he had relations with her. Also, St. Joseph took a vow of virginity just like the Blessed Virgin Mary. A match made in heaven you could say. God wanted to make sure the Messiah's Mother was a virgin and to show He had no earthly Father. Also, when Jesus said "who is my mother, etc." He wasn't sassing His Mom or cousins but showing that those who follow Him/God are His family. I don't follow the King James Version of the Bible. I heard he was bisexual so no I don't read that version.
I cover my hair when I pray read my Bible, and go to church. I always have my scarf and head covering with me and my purse at all times. I never know when I'm going to need to I cover my head when I'm fasting
hi do you wear head covering when in public just doing like maybe shopping or catching up with friends ??? its been a question for me , i have read the 1 corinthians so im asking if wear head covering everytime
@Lunae Wow thankyou for reminding me for not making the Holy Spirit sad and the warning too . Thankyou so much ... ive been reading the Bible and to be honest ive been transformed but there are still some failures like not having patience and not being gentle in action and speaking , youre right we should keep an eye on our actions , the words we say but since im new to head covering never really heard about it until few weeks and then yesterday me and my cousin talk about it and i got curious whether to wear everytime or just in prayers . I think i should learn more by the guidance of the Holy spirit . Thankyou for this respond
@Pielun12 STILL, women must veil up or cover their heads in accordance with Scripture teaching. Do not try and pursued people differently. Where there is an instruction, there is no other righteous choice for the faithful. It is our duty to obey, not argue or undermine the Divinely approved instruction for the faithful.
@Pielun12 It's very simple, when a brother or sister is publicly disobeying the Word of God the brethren have a duty to bring it to the notice of the offending party. So they can repent and see the error of their ways, and so warn others of falling into the same error of judgment.
Im headcovering full time and feels soo good and dignity like women of God. Ex Muslim here after saw Jesus Amen Hallelujah. Thanks for video very nice and informative.
@@wid2297 Im in USA idiot and Im eligible to get citizenship here but im refused because of oath you have to deny Jesus to get citizenship. So we leaving back to my country. Europe, USA is Sodom and Gomorrah you can keep it yourself. There is no Morals here. You guys turn in to zombies.
@@lennydale92 “we only hate” you’re talking about yourself, there is millions of videos of Muslim women getting their head scarfs pulled, and even if you don’t like it, do you think it’s ok to tell what a person wants to wear or not ://
As I was discussing earlier with my siblings about wearing the head covering, I am fully reminded of the Holy Spirit that what I did is for the Lord Jesus Christ. That I must cover my head as a sign of submission and acknowledging that He is my head. I am unmarried but soon will be and I wore it anywhere I go, because God gave me enough grace to fully submit and follow Him. I have not understood it in the beginning but now it is very clear why I should wear one. For this is for God, His glory and my good.
* Where the problem usually begins… (I) If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. A typical question from those who are against hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being shaven than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Think about it. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II) If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, 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." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III) 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?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. 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. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "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 asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter brother/sister, it is a personal conviction that I have. I have not seen anyone wear it in my church or just because others wore it. The Holy Spirit convicted me 3 times about this and I understood I need to wear one, but it doesn't apply with anyone else. They must come with a relationship with Jesus, for He alone is the judge. God bless you.
@@servantjen Doing things out of personal convictions is not the same as scriptural convictions. I know people who follow cults, use all forms of Idolatry and claim that "God" convicted them to do it. As for me I have chosen to follow only God's words that even if something "spiritual" were to suddenly happen upon me regardless of the amount of times I would not listen to it if it is clearly not spelled out in the Scriptures. Galatians 1:8-10 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." One cannot just believe their experiences it must be confirmed in the Bible I will be praying for you.
@@servantjen Dear Madam, Personal conviction may seem to be a good choice of words in this modern age as it is now the norm to follow one's heart or beliefs with no need of tangible evidence. I'm sure you've heard people say that we should do things as long as it feels good. As Christians specifically Bible believing Christians we don't have that luxury. The Bible states to "study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. I also was convicted by the Holy Sprit many times about this topic and can confirm by him and through the Scriptures which fit perfectly that the covering for women in general is long hair. As you may already know God cares about the heart not whether something is worn on the body. This topic often is an issue particularly with those who come from some orthodox religion that often have many other differences in doctrines, therefore we need to make sure if we are following what we read or what someone has interpreted. And as you may also already know we as believers have the right to clarify and not be afraid to convey anything that may seem off to anyone especially a brother or sister. 2nd Tim 3:16-17. Therefore, the Bible must fit perfectly with whatever spiritual experience you may have, if it doesn't we need to re-evaluate what matters most the Scriptures or our experience. Remember 1st John 4: 2 and Galatians 1:8. May God bless you and keep you.
I am not married but I do cover. I know I need to cover completely. I pray Yeshua helps me. One time as I was worshipping before I put my covering on after a shower he said “Cover your head when you worship“.
Smile, good for you. Keep going. Maybe we should bring back the practice in church and worship services as it still applies today. I felt called to cover my head about two years ago during my private devotions and now that I do, I feel so much more peaceful, calm, content, and respectful towards my husband when I cover my head/ hair. I also cover at church, Bible study, etc. I think modern "feminism" (which is extremely destructive to not only women but also to marraiges, children, families, and the church) and this teaching is very much needed. Here is a bit of what I know hopefully if it will help, if anyone is interested? 1 Cor 11 is pretty clear that a woman should cover or veil her head in public worship. The word for covering in 1 Corthians 11:4, 5,6,7, 13, is the word, katakalýptō, from katá, "down, and kalýptō, "to cover"-cover down, to make appropriate (complete), i.e. to wear a veil. It is the root word used for the veil that separated the Holy of holies from the priests. The root word is also used in 2 Cor 3:13. "not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end." But only in vrs 15, where Paul is giving an example from nature is a different word used, "but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering." This is different word from the others for "cover"= "peribolaion," that which is tossed around or a mantel that can be thrown around the shoulders and body (As in when a women tosses or throws her hair around). Cover in the first few verses of 1 Cor 11, should really be translated veil as that is the proper Greek word used. This is where we get the English saying, "Let your hair down." Becuase during the "sexual revolution" women let their hair down out of their buns, uncovered their hair and shook it back and forth. Which is very alluring to man. If hair is the covering as some people say, should all men be bald or can they take their hair off and on? No obviously not. This is why men take their hats off in church or at baseball games, etc. Plus the veil or covering is it be an outward, visible symbol to the angels of us coming under God's authority structure. Since all women have hair, hair is not the symbol. We therefore, must put an actual covering or veil on our head as a symbol that we are coming under authority to remind good and bad angels, since angles cannot read our hearts or mind, but they can clearly see a veil or covering. It is to show the angles that we are in obedience to God's order. (As Satan rebelled because he wanted to usurp God's authority). Also, it's because angels are in church services and they can't see our hearts, but they can see a veil. Angels partake in the gathering of the saints and want to look intently into our worship time. (1 Tim 5:21, 1 peter 1:12, Rev 2:1, 2:8, 2:12, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 3:14). Up until only the last two generations woman covered in Church. All of our grandmothers would have covered in church. Amd many outside the church as well, in everyday living. This is why the Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, the orthodox churches, a lot of African congratations, and Messiniac Beleivers, etc still cover their hair. Here's some verses in the OT about head covering. Hope these help. Isaiah 47:1-2. Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones and grind flour, "put off your veil", strip off your robe, uncover your legs, pass through the rivers. (So as we can see, even virgins were to keep their heads covered and save their hair for their husbands. Otherwise it is like they are showing all their nakedness). Numbers 5:18. Then the priest shall stand the woman before the LORD, "uncover the woman’s head," and put the offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse. Also Genesis 20:16 says in the Hebrew Then to Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; indeed this is "a covering for her eyes" (to put back on her wedding covering) you before all who are with you and before everybody.” Thus she was rebuked. From what I understand In Genesis 24:65. Rebekah covers herself because the bridal price has already been paid. 2 vrs later we see Isaac take Rebekah bright away into his tent. There was no wedding ceremony. Her covering herself was an outward show of her marriage to Isaac. Since they were married he was allowed to take her right away into his tent and "uncover" her. Also, just a thought, and you can take it or leave it, I personally don't think the verses are only for married women, as in the Greek it never uses the word for wife, or husband, just man and women. And if read 1 Cor 11:1-16 it wouldn't make sense for the word to mean wife. For example if wife and husnabds were used instead of man and women instead, 1Cor 11:12. ) For as the (wife) is from the (husband), even so is the (husband) born by the (wife); but all things of God. A husband cannot be born by his wife. (The word in Greek used in 1 cor 11 is= guné, meaning, "a woman, women, wife, my lady, a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow.) Also, as a woman's hair is her glory, (doxa- honor, renown; glory, an especially divine quality, the unspoken manifestation of God, splendor) we should not be putting our glory/ hair on display before the LORD. Only God's glory should be on display. That is what women (married or unmarried) are called to cover. Because it is about humble respect when we come before the King of Kings, and LORD of Lords. Tamar veiled her hair and face. The face was covered so that the "prostitutes" face couldn't be seen.
Also, not sure if you are interested or not, but I would suggest checking out "Garlands Of Grace," or "Glory and Grace," for nice Christian headcoverings. I love them. You could also start off small if you are feeling God calling you in that direction with wide head bands, scarves, bandanas, hats, or stretchy workout headbands/ ear warmers as well? I use them too. Just a thought.🤷♀️🙏💗👍
Hi Rachel I have a short essay that I would like to share that I hope helps with your research. It breifly covers bible version, the meaning of the words cover and uncovered, etc, the odd church belief that women who do not wear a veil should shave off their hair (even if they have long hair), the logic behind verses 13 and 14 among other things.
It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. Therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise. * Where the problem usually begins… If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for not doing so and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered (meaning has short hair) would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair “without” a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, 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." If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” 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?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. 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. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "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 asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there is something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding, we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
Kinda miss when my country's women used to wear black veils when there were funerals in the old days. It kinda looked cool and scary but now some people wear inappropriate clothes in church and in funerals.
My problem always seems to be verse 16 of 1 Corinthians 11. My pastor doesn't believe we should do this. He believes our hair is the veil. I Want to do this. I've decided that, if I cannot wear a covering in church, I will not pray. But my husband has allowed me to wear it at home. Thank God Almighty for that. I need prayer. I have thought perhaps they will let me wear a wool cap in winter. But I will not be prophesying. I will hold my peace. I have long hair and I'm of the belief that my hair is for my husband. Perhaps if I wear a snood, it'll be allowed ? I'd rather obey God than man. Blessings.
If you can, go into a study and look back at the Greek text in 1 Corinthians 11. Once it’s broken down in Greek it becomes much clearer that Paul is referring to artificial head covering and uses a different work in Greek for covering (when referring to women’s hair being their covering) than he uses the rest of the chapter when referring to an actual head covering. So if Paul was clearing trying to state that women’s long hair sufficed as a head covering, wouldn’t he use the same word in verse 16 as he does the rest of the chapter? - it definitely makes you think a little harder about what Paul is trying to get us to understand! - I will be praying for you, that is a tough situation for you to be in and I will admit I am nervous of wearing my head covering at church as well, so I wear a nice hat instead, but hopefully one day this can be normalized. It doesn’t bother me if other people choose not to wear one, so why is it a big deal if I choose to wear one? I think it boils down to pride, which is unfortunate.
If this portion of scripture is talking about hair talking about hair then your pastor should be shaving his head when he praise and prophesies. 1 cor 11:4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
Here is a bit of what I know hopefully if it will help you and maybe even your pastor? 1 Cor 11 is pretty clear that a woman should cover or veil her head in public worship. The word for covering in 1 Corthians 11:4, 5,6,7, 13, is the word, katakalýptō, from katá, "down, and kalýptō, "to cover"-cover down, to make appropriate (complete), i.e. to wear a veil. It is the root word used for the veil that separated the Holy of holies from the priests. The root word is also used in 2 Cor 3:13. "not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end." But only in vrs 15, where Paul is giving an example from nature is a different word used, "but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering." This is different word from the others for "cover"= "peribolaion," that which is tossed around or a mantel that can be thrown around the shoulders and body (As in when a women tosses or throws her hair around). Cover in the first few verses of 1 Cor 11, should really be translated veil as that is the proper Greek word used. This is where we get the English saying, "Let your hair down." Becuase during the "sexual revolution" women let their hair down out of their buns, uncovered their hair and shook it back and forth. Which is very alluring to man. If hair is the covering as some people say, should all men be bald or can they take their hair off and on? No obviously not. This is why men take their hats off in church or at baseball games, etc. Plus the veil or covering is it be an outward, visible symbol to the angels of us coming under God's authority structure. Since all women have hair, hair is not the symbol. We therefore, must put an actual covering or veil on our head as a symbol that we are coming under authority to remind good and bad angels, since angles cannot read our hearts or mind, but they can clearly see a veil or covering. It is to show the angles that we are in obedience to God's order. (As Satan rebelled because he wanted to usurp God's authority). Also, it's because angels are in church services and they can't see our hearts, but they can see a veil. Angels partake in the gathering of the saints and want to look intently into our worship time. (1 Tim 5:21, 1 peter 1:12, Rev 2:1, 2:8, 2:12, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 3:14). Up until only the last two generations woman covered in Church. All of our grandmothers would have covered in church. Amd many outside the church as well, in everyday living. This is why the Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, the orthodox churches, a lot of African congratations, and Messiniac Beleivers, etc still cover their hair. Here's some verses in the OT about head covering. Hope these help. Isaiah 47:1-2. Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones and grind flour, "put off your veil", strip off your robe, uncover your legs, pass through the rivers. (So as we can see, even virgins were to keep their heads covered and save their hair for their husbands. Otherwise it is like they are showing all their nakedness). Numbers 5:18. Then the priest shall stand the woman before the LORD, "uncover the woman’s head," and put the offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse. Also Genesis 20:16 says in the Hebrew Then to Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; indeed this is "a covering for her eyes" (to put back on her wedding covering) you before all who are with you and before everybody.” Thus she was rebuked. From what I understand In Genesis 24:65. Rebekah covers herself because the bridal price has already been paid. 2 vrs later we see Isaac take Rebekah bright away into his tent. There was no wedding ceremony. Her covering herself was an outward show of her marriage to Isaac. Since they were married he was allowed to take her right away into his tent and "uncover" her. Also, just a thought, and you can take it or leave it, I personally don't think the verses are only for married women, as in the Greek it never uses the word for wife, or husband, just man and women. And if read 1 Cor 11:1-16 it wouldn't make sense for the word to mean wife. For example if wife and husnabds were used instead of man and women instead, 1Cor 11:12. ) For as the (wife) is from the (husband), even so is the (husband) born by the (wife); but all things of God. A husband cannot be born by his wife. (The word in Greek used in 1 cor 11 is= guné, meaning, "a woman, women, wife, my lady, a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow.) Also, as a woman's hair is her glory, (doxa- honor, renown; glory, an especially divine quality, the unspoken manifestation of God, splendor) we should not be putting our glory/ hair on display before the LORD. Only God's glory should be on display. That is what women (married or unmarried) are called to cover. Because it is about humble respect when we come before the King of Kings, and LORD of Lords. Tamar veiled her hair and face. The face was covered so that the "prostitutes" face couldn't be seen.
So you based you're faith on god if the pastor allows you to wear this? If you want to go ahead but don't force everyone to do too! The church people during acient time said this not god!
@@mom4christ191 Your comprehension is very bad cover means to not go out naked and to cover the prostitutes face is not because god wants to it's because it brings her family shame and dont want them to recognize her as the girl they slept with
I find head coverings really stylish-but in a good way . theyre waaay better than the loose hair left dangling and untied, which is so common these days.
Smile, thank you for speaking on this. I felt called to cover my head about two years ago during my private devotions and now that I do, I feel so much more peaceful, calm, content, and respectful towards my husband when I cover my head/ hair. I think modern "feminism" (which is extremely destructive to not only women but also to marraiges, children, families, and the church) and this teaching is very much needed. Here is a bit of what I know hopefully if it will help, if anyone is interested? 1 Cor 11 is pretty clear that a woman should cover or veil her head in public worship. The word for covering in 1 Corthians 11:4, 5,6,7, 13, is the word, katakalýptō, from katá, "down, and kalýptō, "to cover"-cover down, to make appropriate (complete), i.e. to wear a veil. It is the root word used for the veil that separated the Holy of holies from the priests. The root word is also used in 2 Cor 3:13. "not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end." But only in vrs 15, where Paul is giving an example from nature is a different word used, "but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering." This is different word from the others for "cover"= "peribolaion," that which is tossed around or a mantel that can be thrown around the shoulders and body (As in when a women tosses or throws her hair around). Cover in the first few verses of 1 Cor 11, should really be translated veil as that is the proper Greek word used. This is where we get the English saying, "Let your hair down." Becuase during the "sexual revolution" women let their hair down out of their buns, uncovered their hair and shook it back and forth. Which is very alluring to man. If hair is the covering as some people say, should all men be bald or can they take their hair off and on? No obviously not. This is why men take their hats off in church or at baseball games, etc. Plus the veil or covering is it be an outward, visible symbol to the angels of us coming under God's authority structure. Since all women have hair, hair is not the symbol. We therefore, must put an actual covering or veil on our head as a symbol that we are coming under authority to remind God's angels since angles cannot read our hearts or mind, but can clearly see a veil or covering. It is to show the angles that we are in obedience to God's order. (As Satan rebelled because he wanted to usurp God's authority). Also, it's because angels are in church services and they can't see our hearts, but they can see a veil. Angels partake in the gathering of the saints and want to look intently into our worship time. (1 Tim 5:21, 1 peter 1:12, Rev 2:1, 2:8, 2:12, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 3:14). Up until only the last two generations woman covered in Church. All of our grandmothers would have covered in church. Amd many outside the church as well, in everyday living. This is why the Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, the orthodox churches, a lot of African congratations, and Messiniac Beleivers, etc still cover their hair. Here's some verses in the OT about head covering. Hope these help. Isaiah 47:1-2. Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones and grind flour, "put off your veil", strip off your robe, uncover your legs, pass through the rivers. (So as we can see, even virgins were to keep their heads covered and save their hair for their husbands. Otherwise it is like they are showing all their nakedness). Numbers 5:18. Then the priest shall stand the woman before the LORD, "uncover the woman’s head," and put the offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse. Also Genesis 20:16 says in the Hebrew Then to Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; indeed this is "a covering for her eyes" (to put back on her wedding covering) you before all who are with you and before everybody.” Thus she was rebuked. From what I understand In Genesis 24:65. Rebekah covers herself because the bridal price has already been paid. 2 vrs later we see Isaac take Rebekah bright away into his tent. There was no wedding ceremony. Her covering herself was an outward show of her marriage to Isaac. Since they were married he was allowed to take her right away into his tent and "uncover" her. Also, just a thought, and you can take it or leave it, I personally don't think the verses are only for married women, as in the Greek it never uses the word for wife, or husband, just man and women. And if read 1 Cor 11:1-16 it wouldn't make sense for the word to mean wife. For example if wife and husnabds were used instead of man and women instead, 1Cor 11:12. ) For as the (wife) is from the (husband), even so is the (husband) born by the (wife); but all things of God. A husband cannot be born by his wife. Also, as a woman's hair is her glory, (doxa- honor, renown; glory, an especially divine quality, the unspoken manifestation of God, splendor) we should not be putting our glory/ hair on display before the LORD. Only God's glory should be on display. That is what women (married or unmarried) are called to cover. Because it is about humble respect when we come before the King of Kings, and LORD of Lords. Tamar veiled her hair and face. The face was covered so that the "prostitutes" face couldn't be seen.
* Starting Off on the Right Foot… It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise. * Where the problem usually begins… If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil and assumes that such a person already has long hair and is wrong for not doing so. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered meaning has short hair would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair without a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to believe to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved.
* Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, 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." If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as “short” 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?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. 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. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "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 asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is no excuse not to understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman have short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to covering as long hair and uncovered to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
@@dv4740 History always repeats itself. i'm seeing more and more modern Christians invest in head coverings and with the clothing trends of gen Z these days, it's starting to get more and more modest again.
There is nothing wrong to wear a headcovering or veils it shows a willingness of even more submission to our lord n stand for morals even more so in these days of a preverted n crooked generation that dislikes godly ways n choose ungodly lives. We are Christians as for myself i belong to God n need to be set apart and not conform to this worldly ways even to a symbol as lovely as a viel and follow God ways and wills into our lives. I enjoy my coverings with honor glory and respect for my lord unto this world. To remind me that I was bought at a cost paid my heavenly father that he gave his precious son to the world, and for me. It is a shame that men and women who are blinded by the devil to seek other physical identity bc they have lost there identity to false pleasures n sins that lead to death or much sufferings to themselves and there families. We were formed in our mothers womb by the lord as a man or woman. Not exchange wat we don't like. Ppl must search within themselves the true root of there hurt n pain n seek the lord for healing n truth n unity among family members. Putting God as the center piece to uncover the damages the devil has come to kill, steal, n destroy with complete deception of ppl identity in christ. We have a father that has given the truth through his son Jesus christ the gospel. If we deny the truth into our lives than we deny christ and all his healing, deliverance, eternity n etc. Thank you lord that the truth sets us free. So plz ppl of God don't quarrel over such headcovering or veils but keep pursuing the lord veil or no veil pray for those that need to see the truth of Jesus to change there lives.
Not wearing veils or scarves isn't UnGodly! if you really read the bible it doesn't say to wear them! It's the church who said that! UnGodly means doing bad things jesus is with us not by the clothes we wear but the good deeds we do! It was popular in the acient world because of their beliefs if you really look into it it's the people who said that not their gods
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald.
Amen. Sadly many still try to deny this and make the passage sound silly with their modern interpretations. I think they are afraid of offending woman. But a woman that loves God is willing to submit under Him. I used to pray with a tallit(prayer shawl) but Paul said that it is a shame for a man to do so. So I stopped praying with one. likewise mens hair should not go past the shoulder or perhaps shoulder blade. Woman and men hair length are very distinguishable in most ethnicities from childhood. Nature teaches us the right order that God intended.
Great job on this video! When I'm asked about my head-covering I prefer to go into the history of women wearing coverings, rather than the scripture, because these people were already misinterpreting the scripture, therefore wouldn't respond to it.
@ Mother Giselle . yep, i discovered this after years of arguing 1Cor 11, i realized the best way is to point CHURCH LEADERS and Christians to Early Church Practice and their view of 1Cor 11, plus all the warnings in New Testament that the Churches will become corrupt in this last days, false teachers EVERYWHERE even among those who follow 1Cor 11 outwardly.
@ Lauren Almeyda . that's good but it's more than something "to start DOING", it's something TO BE INSIDE, something of your consciousness/being that you are in private without the outward keeping WHEN CHRISTIANS GATHER. 1Cor 11 is not saying that woman cannot be naked/uncovered in prayer; in private woman can wear whatever but when Christians gather, one of the teachings in 1Cor 11 is that: women should have a covering over their hair, and not intend to show-off any part of their body or adornment. See Luke 7v37-40, 11v39-40, Gal 5v6
@@231natasha I have. always veiled in church, have worn a Khimar style head covering when outside for twelve years now. I have after long prayer and thought added a face veil though of course Cristian women are not required to wear that. I feel blessed when I do because it preserves my privacy and helps before I from getting distracted I have always been turned off by on modesty and love that in stricter Orthodox Churches ladies are required to dress modestly.
Yeah, if you realize something is ridiculous and stop, don't criticize others for forcing their women to do it 400 years later?....Wait......Does that include burning "witches" too?! LOL
I am Catholic and I wear a head covering [veil] at mass. I belong to a more traditional mass where many wear a veil. I sing at a Novos Ordo church and sadly I am the only one who wears one.
Good explanation.Still in South India all the women inside church wears head cover,scarf,veil,burka cloth till now.Even my family all my sisters and mother wears head covering. Without head covering no one will enters our church. 🇮🇳🇮🇳🙏🙏
I remember being little and mu mum taking me to church. She wore a hat until the 1970s. I also remember her dressing me in my best dress and a hat and gloves. I became Catholic and later, Eastern Orthodox and I never quit .
@@khadija.m3192 I am Christian but cover fully. No one religion owns hijab or niqab. There were even orders of nuns who until recently wore a veil over the face when outside. I have been wearing modest dress and hijab for eleven years now and about two years ago began to feel led to increase my modesty. After considerable thought and prayer, 14 months ago, I began to cover fully when going out as I believe this is what God wills for me.
Don’t you think covering you face is a bit much? Though not sinful, to can out a wall between you and other you may wish to be a witness to. Also, it makes a way for evil people to copy your idea for evil. They could cover their faces to not be recognized/recorded doing criminal things.
@@reflectionsinthebible3579 I'm not in control of what evil people do. They will find a way to be evil no matter how I dress. I wear a face veil brecause after though and prayer, I believe this is God's will for me.
@@lennydale92 I don't think it's your place to tell me how to dress. It would be opression if I were forced to wear it, but I'm not. What you see as oppression is for me a blessing.
There are no specific details in the Bible about what size or shape of cloth that women should wear on their heads. Because of this the assumption is that there is room for creativity and adapting to the situation. Just as we see Christians of past ages wearing many different styles there is still much variety in headcoverings today. If you are not part of a denomination that has given guidelines to it’s congregants you can search “headcovering styles” and choose the type you think is best. The Bible seems to connect headcovering to married status so it’s likely that an unmarried woman doesn’t need to wear one. But if the Holy Spirit is leading you to cover your head then follow your conscience.
@@JesusLightsYourPath The Greek word for woman is somewhat ambiguous and could be translated "every wife" instead of "every woman." Whether or not unmarried women should wear the covering has been discussed and debated from the early church on, so there is certainly a case to be made both ways. Rebekah putting on her covering once she saw her husband (Genesis 24:65) is part of what makes us personally, believe that it is a sign of marriage. Again though, there does not seem to be any prohibition against an unmarried woman wearing one, so those who are convicted to, should go ahead and wear them. "For whatsoever is not of faith, is sin." (Romans 14:23)
@@daringtheology2678 I appreciate your advice. I see this is something God wants all of us to partake in. It also says "for the angels" mentioning the angels that lusted after women. I will always listen to what God says over what mankind says, people will debate scripture for the rest of our days but God wouldn't convict us of something that He hasn't already told us to do through the scriptures.
This is interesting. I know my granny who was born in 1914 never went out without a scarf on her head, and she never once wore trousers. She passed away in 2008. Interestingly i dont recall her going to church although she had a faith. I dont think the head scarf was to do with her faith so much as it was just considered indecent not to have one, and was as routine to her as putting on shoes.
The head covering was also practical in the middle east bc it has so much desert areas. Women had long hair and nobody wants sand in their hair, so that's definitely practical.
1 Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If she has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is further proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to shave his head each time before prayers, or of course be bald...
King James Version: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. Your translation seems to be off it does not mention "while assembling" so that's strike one. Then you say that "If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to shave his head each time before prayers" but the scriptures states: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. They are saying that man ought not to have his head covered in LONG HAIR doing something LIKE praying or LIKE prophesying. It doesn't say they were exclusive they were examples. So it has nothing to do with something being put on or removed. Just don't have long hair that COVERS the head. That's strike two. You seem to not get that they are saying that the covering is long hair that hangs down and to be not covered means to have short hair, not shorn or shaven just short hair.
@@JohnYoder-vi1gj If a woman has no hair because of illness, and the cultural environment around where she lives thinks that a female has no hair is very bad, then she should cover her head by something, is that right?
@@ojokagiso219 I think the issue is not about something out of our control like an illness. From the context of the passage it must be referring to those who choose to wear their hair long on men and short for women. That is why Paul said we have no custom. This is about choice. Not sure what cultural environment you are making up but I think if they are hanging out with fellow believers they would all understand the medical situation.
@@JohnYoder-vi1gj there's that lovely protestant line "I THINK" not "the bible says" or "tradition says" or "the church fathers say" or "Christ said" it's always "I, one flawed individual who thinks he knows more than all the fathers and bishops and councils and monks and apostles combined, have interpreted the bible to be saying this"
Enjoyed this video as my search started with just wanting to learn a way to wrap my hair & then ran into videos if doing this was cultural appropriation.
It’s the end times and Jesus is coming back. God is merciful & compassionate- men are merciless and with little compassion in dealing with humanity- it’s rules smd regulations! God has been asking me to pour out his love. I saw a homeless person asking for help- he looked truly desperate , so I gave him all the cash I had. His face was dumbfounded! Right before that, I noticed a person thst looked like he needed encouragement so I spoke to him. What the world forgets is God is ❤️ Have we all forgotten how to love! Love rules! In the end God is Love not rules!
Scripture and tradition teach this . Even men used to wear hats , unless at prayer or in church , just as the New Testament teaches . There was a huge rebellion against this in the latter 20th century . Thankfully , many in the historic churches are returning to this practice .
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That they are wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. If there where only two exclusive moments then one should have no problem if an “unveiled” woman speaks in tongues, interprets tongues, heals the sick, casts out devils, etc., right? Following such logic it stands to reason that the other instances that I mentioned should be acceptable WITHOUT a veil, right? Now should they say NO, then they should admit that there may be more instances; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, to be false. Please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that EXPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. People ASSUME this because they are misreading scripture. 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 she is uncovered, in other words not covered in long hair. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real life scenario. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Did people really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? I am not saying this to be funny, but people have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved. Given that this comparison seems illogical one should consider that someone may be reading it wrong. For if “uncovered” means “short hair” then it fits the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair) then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved, since it is already short. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven than to being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman is somehow equal to being shaved. Please don’t dismiss this logic think about it for a minute. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women as well as headship. Bit as far as the physical head is concerned the question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say all of 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." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation. If we are to make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them without having to start studying Greek. * 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 into 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. Again, don’t dismiss this think about it. Be honest, does looking at a woman doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying, that 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 like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "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 by OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (aka short hair) while praying and a man having long hair. I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head “COVERED” in this verse refers to “LONG HAIR.” 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 the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is being exclusive to two actions instead of seeing them as two examples. As stated 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. The same should be understood 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off, ESPECIALLY in this verse, as it offers no examples or “supposed” exclusive conditions. In this instance it is to be understood that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. Keep in mind that short hair is NOT the same as being shaved. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. Unfortunately people tend to get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seems like some kind of headwear but do not consider all the verses that show that the “covering” means long hair and that “uncovered” is to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Sodality, Not sure what you mean by "historic" churches? Actually, I haven't seen any evidence that more churchgoers are following the interpretation of women wearing some kind of head covering. In fact, I'm seeing just the opposite even among those who tend to be well-known veil supporters like the Mennonites. The conference Mennonites have left this man-made "church" practice.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter lovely scriptural analysis, but this is exactly why sola scriptura is a serious issue. You can interpret and interpret to make the scripture agree with you even though we know it to be fact that traditionally speaking all Jewish and all early Christian women veiled, and it is a tradition that has passed down in the Orthodox and (up until recently) Catholic churches (which are the only two churches with an actual claim to apostolic succession). The Mother of God herself veiled, it is a know fact. No matter how much you contort scripture it's a known thing that at the time it was dishonourable for women to be outside the home without modest dress and veiling her head, and this is a tradition that we are expected to maintain at the very least in church today
@@JohnYoder-vi1gj i don't know where you got the idea that Mennonites are a historic church, they're about 5 times removed from the apostolic tradition. The Catholic church maintained the practice of women wearing veils in church up until Vatican II, and even still it's making a resurgence among traditionalists, and in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Chruches (as well as the Church of the East, I would assume) it has never 'gone out of fashion' and has been the expectation of all women in the Orthodox church since it's inception with the apostles
Watch old footage from Victorian Britain the women also used to wear veils but it didn't go out of fashion it came to an era when Queen Victoria passed away but most Christians still wear them but Muslims spread lies saying there don’t
You're right that the 1917 code of Canon law said women must cover their heads in church. The 1983 code was silent on it. So that 1917 law was in force all that time and it didn't really fall away till the 70s or 80s due to feminism. It's coming back though. This was great thanks 😊
@@Abby-bc1er With respect the "desirable" wording refers to men and women's separate seating. The wording regarding head covering is the mandatory "shall" Canon 1262 § 1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church. § 2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bareheaded, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.
In short, we women should go back to feeling and being completely women. Honest married women shouldn't dress like today's fashion dictates to dress. We should not wear pants, especially if they are tight, we should not wear miniskirts, necklines, shoulders out and we should always go back to covering our head, chest, and legs up to the ankle. In spite at our century, I hope we are going back to ancient traditional clothing. Veils and modesty for women were not only part of christian tradition, they were part of almost ancient cultures.
* Where the problem usually begins… (I) If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. A typical question from those who are against hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being shaven than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Think about it. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II) If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, 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." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III) 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?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. 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. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "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 asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter vs 5 if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved. But if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered be long hair. Your logic makes no sense. The arguement of hair being a testicle makes more sense than your logic (Dr Heiser podcast #86). Besides, these days it is not a shame to have short hair. So should I ware a covering because I have very short hair in the summer time.
Headscarf is not for covering hair only, headscarf is also use to covering chest from others eye. However women start to change her mind to not wearing headscarf because nobody wants to protect the headscarf culture, and because Christian law become less practice in western.
Harris Syah you are kind of adding words to the Bible! Plus clothes already do that. Muslims use their hijab to do that and Jesus called us to be separate from the world
It was never Christian law. It is not in the New Testament. It was just cultural sexism. The Bible does not tell women to be ashamed of their bodies. (1 Corinthians 11:13-16) Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-nor do the churches of God.
@@MFLimited Thank you. Some men seem to be so scared and disgusted by women's bodies. They must be terrible lovers! It's upsetting to them that we even have female bodies.
This video although sincere is pretty lacking and very much only focusing on the mainstream washed out and western perspective. Please do not present culture as if it has died out if people still practice continuously.
It does not say to cover your head all the time. It clearly says when you are praying, or prophesying. Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-it is the same as having her head shaved. 1 Corinthians 5-6.
@@angieruthwEastern Orthodox Christians try to meditate on the Holy Name of Jesus (the Jesus Prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me"), aiming to ceaselessly make every breath a prayer. If you see videos of Russian Orthodox ladies in church they're always wearing veil/headscarf, often outside of church too. God bless you dear Sisters +
Per farla breve, noi donne dovremmo tornare a sentirci e ad essere completamente donne. Le donne sposate e oneste non dovrebbero vestirsi come la moda d'oggi impone di vestirsi. Non dovremmo portare i pantaloni, specialmente se aderenti, non dovremmo portare minigonne, scollature, spalle di fuori e dovremmo tornare a coprirci sempre la testa, il petto, e le gambe fino alla caviglia.
"6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. 7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: 9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man: 10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels. 1 Cor 11:5-10 (ASV)
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.
Why are you spreading misinformation and twisting the teachings as they are written in the Bible? 1 Corinthians 11:15 “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” The veil is nice and I personally like it; BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY and according to the above noted teaching, NEVER WAS.
Consider all of 1 Corinthians 11, particularly 5-6: “but every wife[c] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.” If the long hair is enough, why does Paul say that if a woman prays uncovered, it’s as if she had a shaven head?
@@erincoughlin4187 - Yea, good question. It seems contradictory as per the 1 Corinthians 11:15 noted above. Maybe it is just married women who are required to cover their head, seems so. I like the veil, as I said in my comment above, I was just pointing out the full context regarding a woman with long hair. Another aspect of 1 Corinthians which speaks of men not having long hair etc; yet in every picture depicting Jesus
also some translations say every woman i’m confided as to if this only refers to a woman and her husband only or women and man or single women with God being their head
@@Tanaeaa Why do some say these passages refer only to married people? Now I’m sure some will reply saying the glory of the woman (aka the long hair) was only meant for the husband to see. This belief is not because of some scripture that details this since it does not exist. It is mainly due to misunderstanding of the word “woman” to mean wife. The same can be said for the word “man” to mean husband. Since we cannot find a place that says that the woman’s glory was only meant for the husband to see we should set that theory aside. The words “husband,” “wife,” “marriage” or anything similar are not found but some will claim that that is what they are referring to. This is a classic case of reading more into what the Scriptures are actually stating. But the way it is structured gives the strong impression that it is referring GENERALLY to ALL men and women NOT just married couples. Some people have stated that the words “man” and “woman” are interchangeable for “husband” and “wife” but if we read the context of the passages, we can see that this cannot be the case. For example, verses 8 and 9 delve into the order of creation, which obviously includes everyone whether they are married or not. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women. “EVERY man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But EVERY woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” You will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts if one were to exchange the words above for husband and wife, because then it would seem like all the single men CAN wear a covering or all the single women can be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” Lastly, how can one navigate these passages correctly if one were to claim that the words they are reading do not mean what they state? How can one tell when they read the word "man" they really mean "a male person" and not “husband” and the same thing goes for the words: woman and wife? If one were to argue they were referring to married couples, then how one can expect anyone to believe what they read? The logical thing to do is to understand what they mean by the context of the verses and in this case, they are referring to ALL men and women. - FA
@bonpearl5334 not contradictory Jesus was a nazarene. They don't cut their hair while they do God's work. They called him the nazarene, not a nazarite but still nazarene meaning he's like a priest without being levite. They put it avive him on the cross and the Pharisees git upset because it means Jesus is king. You also have to understand Paul is sarcastic. He writes put his sarcasm and conversation with all of tgat and asks questions that are implied. Jesus was Jewish he would have covered his head. It's in christ all things are complete and only then can man go before God as a priest himself uncovered. All glory except God's glory is covered when coming before God out of reverence
* Starting Off on the Right Foot… It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise. * Where the problem usually begins… If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil and assumes that such a person already has long hair and is wrong for not doing so. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered meaning has short hair would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair without a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to believe to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, 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." If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as “short” 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?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. 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. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "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 asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is no excuse not to understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman have short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to covering as long hair and uncovered to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
1 Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If she has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering just cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is further proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to shave his head each time before prayers, or of course be bald...
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 The question for some who are against hair being the covering is usually this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The response to this is: Where did you read the word: Only? Such a person is assuming exclusivity instead of seeing it as simply two examples being given. If you truly believe in this exclusivity interpretation then a woman should be fine if they don’t wear a veil and speak in tongues or interpret the tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if a woman is doing this has her head uncovered. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also. please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. PS the word "assembling" is not in the KJV which you should read as well as all the other verses as it does not have all the words from the "NEW" versions that trip one up. "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered" (Not covered meaning not covered in in long hair). 1st Corinthians 11:15 is the key please read it.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter You make good points that the intent is likely to be covered always, or nearly always and that "assembling" is not in the context. I don't get why so many people immediately assume this is only for church when the passage says nothing of the sort. Yet, when you look at the Greek, the word family (katakalupto) or "cover" is used throughout the passage except in one place. That one place is verse 15 where it says "her hair is given to her for a peribolaion." Paul carefully distinguishes her hair (peribolaion) from the type of covering (katakalupto) he talks about in the rest of the passage by using a different word in his comparison to nature. In fact, if you trace peribolaion through the quote of Psalm 102:26 in Hebrews 1 verse 12, you find that it correlates to the Hebrew word "leboosh." "Leboosh is the word used for Christ's undergarment that had lots cast for it in Psalm 22:18. So "her hair is given to her for an under-covering" would be a reasonable reading. An under-covering should be covered by another covering as Christ wore an outer garment over His "peribolaion." There is a reason why, as this video goes through, not wearing a veil has been pretty much unheard of throughout Christian history. The passage has been clear to every culture until relatively few decades ago.
@@joshuawilliams5348 When it comes to the topic of head coverings I’ve never seen so many people make the point about how head coverings were a “cultural thing” or that the “historical evidence” shows that SOME women wore some kind of headwear for centuries and that due to certain social or cultural movements (like the feminist movement) people started to drift away from it. There are several videos online of lengthy discussions of as to how long women had been wearing something on their heads for centuries and then show how only recently women began to stop wearing them, usually because of an introduction of some evil. This is used to somehow show proof or credence to their beliefs that women ought to wear a veil or something. This is by no means a proof of any kind. One CANNOT use practices that were done by various peoples for various reasons, performed for various years as proof. If one has to resort to going outside the scope of the scriptures to prove their point then their evidence was likely very thin to begin with. Please note that Evidence that is OUTSIDE the confines of the Scriptures is NOT THE SAME LEVEL AS SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. Often cited are the facts that there are many ancient pictures or paintings of women wearing some kind of headwear. But again what people did in the past is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches; plus people wore headwear for all sorts of reasons, it doesn’t mean that they were abiding to Scripture either. Again, length of time of a practice cannot be used as proof. For example: The fact that people believed in using CRUCIFIXES and performed INFANT BAPTISMS for CENTURIES does not mean that we ought to accept such practices. (Feel free to Google this.) Wouldn’t those who believe in this use the same reasoning as those who point to history to lend credence to wearing veils? Of course they would. False doctrines have been around for centuries, therefore, how can anyone use paintings, photos or even writings to prove their interpretation of Scripture is correct? All it shows (like crucifixes and infant baptisms) that people can be wrong for a very long period of time. One can even point in the New Testament where people were already misinterpreting Scriptures and teaching others false doctrines. Therefore, what the people did, however long ago, does not prove that what they practiced was scriptural truth. Therefore it is irrelevant if women in certain parts of the world wore something on their heads for many years. What matters is what the Scriptures teach. When some people refer to the idea that it was the culture of the day to wear veils it is often to disprove it. Meaning it was a true thing to follow at the time but not for today. They will sometimes also add that since it was written in 1st Corinthians the “covering” doctrine was ONLY meant for those who lived in Corinth. This is also a flawed interpretation, because first it accepts the misinterpretation of veils as a covering when it is long hair. Second, it is wrong to think that these passages were meant for a specific group when it is clearly understood it was meant for all men and women by the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman…” in verses 4 and 5. Add to this the fact that it mentions the creation order in verses 8 and 9 then there is no doubt IT MUST BE APPLICABLE TO ALL! If you go online and listen to others about this subject you will find an array of unsubstantiated stories of how people thought about wearing or not wearing a veil meant. As an example one TH-cam video has someone relaying a story about how some believe that the first century church viewed women going without a veil as equal to being topless! Shocking as this may sound this is what some denominations believe with no biblical proof whatsoever. Another shocking story (based on a book) is that some believe that the only women that went around without a veil on their heads were prostitutes and was the reason 1st Corinthians 11 was written. Some use the story in Genesis that Rebecca covered her head when she approached Isaac’s home, as though they knew exactly what she was thinking when she did this. Others believe that married women had to wear veils to show their marital status. Some will point to a “historical” book which “opened their eyes” that women had to wear veils. In one instance I found online an individual who would rightly say that we don’t need other books to understand the Bible, but then quote so-called “Christians” like Tertullian for a lengthy amount of time as though what they wrote was law. (See 2nd Tim 4:3) This is a contradiction. Besides how can we trust what they wrote was true? Or, how can we be sure there wasn’t any bias in the author’s writings? Or if what the people did was because of a misinterpretation? If such ideas cannot be biblically substantiated or if they require a lot of biblical manipulation to try to fit into their narrative then it should not be received as truth. So what does it imply that one has to go BEYOND THE SCOPE of the Bible to prove their point? It implies that READING THE BIBLE IS NOT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND certain truths. I cannot stress this more because this is very important and that for ANY topic not just about head covering. If someone asks you to read or hear something historical than what is in the Bible to get a better understanding, then they are implying that their argument is so thin that they have to resort to other sources.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter First off, I did not appeal to history as a REASON for veiling. I appeal to history to show that most Christians throughout time have had understood this passage as being about a cloth covering. I agree that there have been persistent errors in church history, so this evidence carries less weight, yet to contradict an understanding that dates back to the early church should not be done lightly or without significant biblical evidence. I listed the historical position last in my previous comment, because it is less weighty, though it should still be considered. I also agree with you that Paul was talking about something that was more than just culture and should be applied through the ages, just like I agree with you that the passage is not talking about solely within the church assembling time. Another passage that can be looked at to show that Paul meant it to apply beyond ancient Corinth is 1 Timothy 2:8-9 "I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;" Men are to pray in a specific way and then "In like manner" (meaning pray again) "the women adorn themselves in modest apparel" and "not with broidered hair." Notice that the modest apparel is contrasted with decorating the hair! In other words, to wrap the hair modestly makes sense as what he is recommending and it is in the context of praying while so covered just like in 1 Corinthians 11. The Greek word for apparel there (katastole) is also sharing a root with "Katakalupto." On top of that, in the law of jealousy in Numbers 5, the woman is to have her covering (which according to 1 Corinthians 11 is associated with her husband) removed in order to answer directly to God regarding the accusation of her infidelity. Also, your response seems to have ignored the points I made regarding the Greek words in 1 Corinthians 11 making a distinction between "katakalupto" with a cloth and the hair being only a "peribolaion" which is really the strongest argument for veiling. When one looks at these other scriptures and the Greek words used, the argument for veiling is quite strong just from scripture alone.
Went casually looking for some information on European mediaeval headwear......................... found the most sexist, misogynistic comments section in the universe 😳
@@angieruthw Juuuuust realized that autocorrect Wrote “sexiest” when I meant to write sexist. Oh no. Yes, there are a lot of sexist comments here, in my opinion.
Not exactly. But Christianity and Judaism predate Islam, and Mohammed was influenced by the Jews and Christians whom he knew. Really more accurate to say that the head coverings have a common ancestry, all being from the middle east.
@@jdemian6952 no, right religion is from the first human existence. It is the straight path. We believe Adam is Muslim and out Prophet is the last messenger.
@@jdemian6952 Arab Women already had Head Covering. Islam teached the Muslim Women to also Cover the Neck and all the Body as the Arab Women had just Hair covered and Neck and Ear where open
@@jdemian6952 Muhammad Amin was unable to read and write, he could not have copied from Judaism and Christianity The teachings of Judaism and Christianity were revealed by God, but Christian Jews distorted it, so it is normal for there to be similarities
@@harrietharlow9929 I'm Christian , Christians nowadays starting reading bible , and i myself , i start reading bible until i read about modesty and veil head covered in the bible , so Now I'm in modest and covered my hair when I'm in praying or prophesies , ,, Sister Your not alone , pray and pray , a lot of Christians now learn to be modest ♥️
Muslims they did not adapted from anyone its command from their God through their prophet Muhammad peace upon him. But sure the God is one so the command is one too 😉👍
Same God, same basic commands throughout the Abrahamic religions, just in a different language and adapted to cultural nuances. But facial coverings like the Niqab were born out of environmental necessity from sand storms, as the men wore them and head coverings as well. Spent 2 years of my life in Afghanistan. Day 3 I was in a full scarf and niqab as well because that sun plus the sand storms are PAINFUL.
Niqab maybe in Afghan culture thing but in Islam is not, it was a command just for prophet Muhammad's wives to wear it for their rank and position as the prophet wives... While prophet Muhammad's daughter Fatima was not commanded to do that she never were niqab only hijab.
@@margauxf4321 Muslims believe in really one only God Christians believes in 3 different gods Muslims believe each person is responsible for his own act Christians believes jesus is responsible for their act and therefore he must die to forgive their sins Muslims believe that jesus was saved as he was praying for God Christians believe jesus was crucified There are many differents , I'm open for discussion
And if I refuse, what will be my punishment? I see you are good at quoting the Qur'an. Would you mind answering my question honestly? I can also quote the Qur'an accurately and am interested in how you respond.
@@matthewbrown9029 there will be day judgement for all mankind. Unbeliever and evildoer will be in hellfire. Hypocrite people will be in jahannam. If you and your family are unbeliever, you all going to get punishment. Also see the sirah of our Prophet during Mu'tah War against 200,000 Rome army. th-cam.com/video/RKoxMJjAcc8/w-d-xo.html
![[Full Episode] The Restaurant War Thailand ศึกพ่อค้าซ่าแม่ค้าแซ่บ Episode 2 | 29 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r3lfLNH6Ke4/mqdefault.jpg)
I kind of wish we kept the headscarf style I think it’s really beautiful
It still exist lol. In africa mostly 🥰
@@anywayswhatiswiththefanwar5602 unfortunately not in western worlds.
Check out the channel head covering movement :)
Yes🥺
I know right
I really wish the veil would be brought back into western society.
The holy spirit told me to cover my hair......
Me, too!! January 6, 2020, was the day He told me to cover.
Me as well... and when I forget it He reminds me! It also represents the protection of God over us...
Same here
Wow
Same sister💕 he’s doesn’t like it uncovered. Some of us don’t know and some of us are being disobedient and some just don’t know but the Holy Spirit can work with us all.
I started wearing veils and I like it a lot idk why I feel a lot closer to God and free
It's a good thing that you wear Vail, just remember, It is not about what we like, It is about, what God wants from Us
@@alvaroochoa5238 yeah but my hair is long so it’s not a requirement. My hair act as an coverings
@@milanwrld
1 Corinthians 11:5-6
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
@@alvaroochoa5238 Nah god didn't say to wear them so we could feel closer to him the priest and its followers did
Isaiah 47:2-3 and Ezekiel 16:7 call the hair nakedness, I believe the bible calls women to cover all of their hair full-time.
Yes it does in 1 Corinthians 11 🧕🏼☦️✝️
@@masi7iyah140 Yeah ,some people do not think that chapter calls women to cover full-time but it does :)
@@WESTON5628 Which is why I do so when outside. Bless you for pointing this out. Hopefully I will work up to full time, both in and out of the house.
@@WESTON5628 Hello brother. I disagree. Isaiah and Ezekiel describe a different covering. Covering is only for prayer and prophesy.
The covering you talk about is a different one. The passage from the prophet Ezekiel describes both grown (not uncovered hair) and fashioned breasts. Such is the point. We read 1 Corinthians 11 that women are not to cut their hair, so the grown hair cannot be a reference to women. "Thine hair is grown" can only be described about the ones God did not provide with long hair - men (refering to 1 Corinthians 11 also, Verse 14; indeed, Samson was forbidden to cut his hair by God, but that was an exception to him being a Nazarite). This passage also tells a lot more. The issue was not that the ladies stopped cutting their hair... there was a lot more: " But thou didst trust in thine own beauty, and playedst the harlot because of thy renown, and pouredst out thy fornications on every one that passed by; his it was. And of thy garments thou didst take, and deckedst thy high places with divers colours, and playedst the harlot thereupon: the like things shall not come, neither shall it be so. Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them, and tookest thy broidered garments, and coveredst them: and thou hast set mine oil and mine incense before them." (Verses 15-18)
Isaiah 47 is a similar one. This time directed to Babylon, but this may make. We are not exactly told what the nakedness is here. Multiple things are being uncovered, multiple things that make the man lust after her: "uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh". There have been discussions regarding this. But we can suggest that the uncovered thigh is the nakedness. The locks can be seen as such also, at least under prayer, but I do not believe it is the nakedness being described here. If it was, grinding the mill would likewise be a part of the nakedness.
A lot of people don't realize that, until very recently, it was almost expected to wear some form of head covering when going out in public. No scarf or hat was usually reserved for time among friends or, if you're a man, inside a building or home.
@Inconspicuous Charr source? I know southerners and they don’t.
My granny was born in 1914 and died in 2008, she never went out without a headscarf. But she didn't go to church, it was just considered indecent. She never wore a pair of trousers either.
Jesus still wants us to cover our hair, 💕
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the
the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head
when praying to God.
If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair
each time before prayers, or of course, be bald.
Corinthians 1:2
To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ-their Lord and ours.
Fore those who says that the word from Corinthians 11 is only for the Corinthians.
God is doing this. He told me to start covering my head. It is what He wants and He is re-establishing His instructions for us.
How did you deal with the head covering conviction, did other people in your church encourage this? Or were you the only one? Thanks
The Lord has been dealing with me about not wearing make up, wearing only dresses, and then a few months ago to cover my head. It has been a process that He started years ago but finally got very strong about it January 2018 and He told me strongly only dresses and no make-up. It started years ago as I read the scriptures and could see what the scriptures said but the church would say, about head covering that it was a cultural thing but the truth is when you hold the scriptures up to the modern day church the church looks nothing like the scriptures.
So to answer your question the Lord just spoke to me in my heart and said cover your head.
1Corinthians 11:5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. (I pray all the time so I felt I should cover all the time because I never know when I might have a word from the Lord or break out into full blown prayer.) Also: verse 10 says: Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. ( Which refers to Genesis 6. ) Genesis 6: 1-2 Now it came about, when men began to multiple on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God (Angels) saw that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whom ever they chose.
Genesis 6 goes on to explain that Giants were born from these unions between angels and the daughters of men so that the blood line of man had become corrupt but Noah's line had not been corrupted that's why God flooded the earth. So Paul refers to this in 1 Corinthians 11:10.
Peter also refers to Genesis 6 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgements; and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;
Also Jude refers to Genesis 6 in Jude 6 - And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the Judgement of the great day, ( so we cover our heads because of the angels , it is a sign of God's authority over us and a warning and reminder to the angels to keep their selves from touching or lusting after us.)
Jude who was the natural brother of Jesus talked about Enoch prophesying in Jude 14, I wondered how Jude knew that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied about anything because all the Bible says about Enoch is that He pleased God and was no more because God took him. Well it turns out that there is a book of Enoch and I have read it and Jesus Himself quotes out of the book of Enoch as well as the disciples. In Enoch chapter 6-21 it goes into great detail about Genesis 6.
So this is how God convicted me about covering my head. Also Watching this video caused me to remember that growing up woman did cover their heads especially at church. I remember wearing Easter bonnets to church.😇
@@loispappademos4369 very well said but Jesus had no brothers. Jude was a cousin---the aramaic language had no word for cousin so all were considered brothers. If Jude was a true biologic brother of Jesus then a great fight and scandal would have occured at the Crucifixion when Jesus entrusted His Mother Mary to St. John. A mother according to Jewish law of the day, was the inheritance of the son if the husband was gone. If Jude was Jesus' brother then he should've inherited Her but he didn't. She was given to St. John therefore, Jesus had no biologic brothers. He was a cousin.
@@sharont6184 Yeshua Jesus had many brothers and sisters. Mattew 2:25 says that Joseph kept her a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to a Son. Mary did not die a virgin. She did have other children but you are right that after Joseph's death the care of his wife went to the oldest son, then by custom after Yeshua died His mother was to go to the next in line, so that's why from the cross Yeshua entrusted His mother into the hands of John His beloved brother in the Lord. Remember that He said in Mattew 12:48 "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And stretching out His hand toward His disciples (this included John), He said, Behold My mother and My brothers! " For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother." He also said in Luke 11:27 While Yeshua ( Jesus) was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, "Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which you nursed." But He said, "On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." So it is those who hear and observe the word of God who are His brothers. His natural brothers were not believing in Him until after He died and rose again. John 7:3 For not even his brothers were believeing in Him.
Matthew 13:54-57- He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were all astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers."Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James (which is actually Jacob, everywhere you see the name James in the New Testament it is actually Jacob, King James did that)and Joseph and Simon and Judas (actually Judah)? "And His sister's, are they not all with us? (Yeshua Jesus did have brothers and sisters)Where then did this man get all these things?" And they took offense at Him. But Yeshua (Jesus) said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household."
Actually if you think about it, if the Son of God says to John, she is now your mother, no demon in hell could stand up against His words, no matter tradition. 😇
@@loispappademos4369 yes, i understand all that but a "brother in the Lord" didn't fly in Jewish law. John was not a biological brother to Jesus. John was also the youngest of the Apostles so Jude was older correct? If Jude was a brother as you say, then why wasn't there a big family fight at the cross over who was to inherit the Blessed Virgin Mary? And the word "until" was used to prove her virginity. It does not say he had relations with her. Also, St. Joseph took a vow of virginity just like the Blessed Virgin Mary. A match made in heaven you could say. God wanted to make sure the Messiah's Mother was a virgin and to show He had no earthly Father. Also, when Jesus said "who is my mother, etc." He wasn't sassing His Mom or cousins but showing that those who follow Him/God are His family. I don't follow the King James Version of the Bible. I heard he was bisexual so no I don't read that version.
I cover my hair when I pray read my Bible, and go to church. I always have my scarf and head covering with me and my purse at all times. I never know when I'm going to need to I cover my head when I'm fasting
hi do you wear head covering when in public just doing like maybe shopping or catching up with friends ??? its been a question for me , i have read the 1 corinthians so im asking if wear head covering everytime
@Lunae Wow thankyou for reminding me for not making the Holy Spirit sad and the warning too . Thankyou so much ... ive been reading the Bible and to be honest ive been transformed but there are still some failures like not having patience and not being gentle in action and speaking , youre right we should keep an eye on our actions , the words we say but since im new to head covering never really heard about it until few weeks and then yesterday me and my cousin talk about it and i got curious whether to wear everytime or just in prayers . I think i should learn more by the guidance of the Holy spirit . Thankyou for this respond
@Pielun12
STILL, women must veil up or cover their heads in accordance with Scripture teaching.
Do not try and pursued people differently.
Where there is an instruction, there is no other righteous choice for the faithful.
It is our duty to obey, not argue or undermine the Divinely approved instruction for the faithful.
@Pielun12
It's very simple, when a brother or sister is publicly disobeying the Word of God the brethren have a duty to bring it to the notice of the offending party.
So they can repent and see the error of their ways, and so warn others of falling into the same error of judgment.
And obey the written Word of God.
Im headcovering full time and feels soo good and dignity like women of God. Ex Muslim here after saw Jesus Amen Hallelujah. Thanks for video very nice and informative.
Thank you Lord Jesus ❤️ I'm so happy for you sister welcome to the truth , I know heaven is rejoicing.
Lol you changed Your religion To get citizenship in Europe, I've seen a lot of people like you 🤣🤣🤣
@@wid2297 Im in USA idiot and Im eligible to get citizenship here but im refused because of oath you have to deny Jesus to get citizenship. So we leaving back to my country. Europe, USA is Sodom and Gomorrah you can keep it yourself. There is no Morals here. You guys turn in to zombies.
@@wid2297 Never has she mentioned moving from one country to another.
@@ehh5812 don't mind her. Just pity her and pray for the Lord Jesus Christ to show himself to her.
It's called " OBEDIENCE ". Something that most of humanity doesn't understand or care for. 😔
May our Father in Heaven have mercy on us. 🙏🦁🐑🕊🙏
Why y’all Christians praise the veils for nuns, but mad for Muslims 😶?
@@hani0910
We only hate Niqabs and Burkas. Head scarves are fine.
@@lennydale92 “we only hate” you’re talking about yourself, there is millions of videos of Muslim women getting their head scarfs pulled, and even if you don’t like it, do you think it’s ok to tell what a person wants to wear or not ://
@@lennydale92 we? I am Christian and respect all religions and whatever Muslims want to wear is not my concern.
@@kay-fs8tb
You are aware that in Islam Muslims are instructed to persecute you right?
I pray our women switch back to head coverings... AMEN.....
Religous freedom means let people do what they believe. So women should have the freedom to choose to cover their hair or not.
As I was discussing earlier with my siblings about wearing the head covering, I am fully reminded of the Holy Spirit that what I did is for the Lord Jesus Christ. That I must cover my head as a sign of submission and acknowledging that He is my head. I am unmarried but soon will be and I wore it anywhere I go, because God gave me enough grace to fully submit and follow Him. I have not understood it in the beginning but now it is very clear why I should wear one. For this is for God, His glory and my good.
* Where the problem usually begins… (I)
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil.
A typical question from those who are against hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot.
So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off.
Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being shaven than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Think about it.
* Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II)
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, 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."
If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic.
* You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III)
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?"
If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. 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. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"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 asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ”
I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
That's such a beautiful testimony. Be encouraged, and continue to grow in the way of Christ.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter brother/sister, it is a personal conviction that I have. I have not seen anyone wear it in my church or just because others wore it. The Holy Spirit convicted me 3 times about this and I understood I need to wear one, but it doesn't apply with anyone else. They must come with a relationship with Jesus, for He alone is the judge. God bless you.
@@servantjen Doing things out of personal convictions is not the same as scriptural convictions. I know people who follow cults, use all forms of Idolatry and claim that "God" convicted them to do it. As for me I have chosen to follow only God's words that even if something "spiritual" were to suddenly happen upon me regardless of the amount of times I would not listen to it if it is clearly not spelled out in the Scriptures. Galatians 1:8-10 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
One cannot just believe their experiences it must be confirmed in the Bible I will be praying for you.
@@servantjen Dear Madam, Personal conviction may seem to be a good choice of words in this modern age as it is now the norm to follow one's heart or beliefs with no need of tangible evidence. I'm sure you've heard people say that we should do things as long as it feels good. As Christians specifically Bible believing Christians we don't have that luxury. The Bible states to "study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
I also was convicted by the Holy Sprit many times about this topic and can confirm by him and through the Scriptures which fit perfectly that the covering for women in general is long hair. As you may already know God cares about the heart not whether something is worn on the body. This topic often is an issue particularly with those who come from some orthodox religion that often have many other differences in doctrines, therefore we need to make sure if we are following what we read or what someone has interpreted.
And as you may also already know we as believers have the right to clarify and not be afraid to convey anything that may seem off to anyone especially a brother or sister. 2nd Tim 3:16-17.
Therefore, the Bible must fit perfectly with whatever spiritual experience you may have, if it doesn't we need to re-evaluate what matters most the Scriptures or our experience. Remember 1st John 4: 2 and Galatians 1:8.
May God bless you and keep you.
I love this. I don't feel like I am so alone. Thank you!
Not at all, Harriet. We are many. I cover since 2014. Thank G'd.
I hope we can talk soon I also wear niqab
I am not married but I do cover. I know I need to cover completely. I pray Yeshua helps me. One time as I was worshipping before I put my covering on after a shower he said “Cover your head when you worship“.
I am researching "head cover" and this by far was the best video explaining it. Thank you for the time you put into this video! ❤️💕💕
Smile, good for you. Keep going. Maybe we should bring back the practice in church and worship services as it still applies today.
I felt called to cover my head about two years ago during my private devotions and now that I do, I feel so much more peaceful, calm, content, and respectful towards my husband when I cover my head/ hair. I also cover at church, Bible study, etc.
I think modern "feminism" (which is extremely destructive to not only women but also to marraiges, children, families, and the church) and this teaching is very much needed.
Here is a bit of what I know hopefully if it will help, if anyone is interested?
1 Cor 11 is pretty clear that a woman should cover or veil her head in public worship. The word for covering in 1 Corthians 11:4, 5,6,7, 13, is the word, katakalýptō, from katá, "down, and kalýptō, "to cover"-cover down, to make appropriate (complete), i.e. to wear a veil.
It is the root word used for the veil that separated the Holy of holies from the priests.
The root word is also used in 2 Cor 3:13. "not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end."
But only in vrs 15, where Paul is giving an example from nature is a different word used, "but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering."
This is different word from the others for "cover"= "peribolaion," that which is tossed around or a mantel that can be thrown around the shoulders and body (As in when a women tosses or throws her hair around).
Cover in the first few verses of 1 Cor 11, should really be translated veil as that is the proper Greek word used.
This is where we get the English saying, "Let your hair down."
Becuase during the "sexual revolution" women let their hair down out of their buns, uncovered their hair and shook it back and forth. Which is very alluring to man.
If hair is the covering as some people say, should all men be bald or can they take their hair off and on? No obviously not. This is why men take their hats off in church or at baseball games, etc.
Plus the veil or covering is it be an outward, visible symbol to the angels of us coming under God's authority structure. Since all women have hair, hair is not the symbol. We therefore, must put an actual covering or veil on our head as a symbol that we are coming under authority to remind good and bad angels, since angles cannot read our hearts or mind, but they can clearly see a veil or covering. It is to show the angles that we are in obedience to God's order. (As Satan rebelled because he wanted to usurp God's authority). Also, it's because angels are in church services and they can't see our hearts, but they can see a veil. Angels partake in the gathering of the saints and want to look intently into our worship time. (1 Tim 5:21, 1 peter 1:12, Rev 2:1, 2:8, 2:12, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 3:14).
Up until only the last two generations woman covered in Church. All of our grandmothers would have covered in church. Amd many outside the church as well, in everyday living. This is why the Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, the orthodox churches, a lot of African congratations, and Messiniac Beleivers, etc still cover their hair.
Here's some verses in the OT about head covering. Hope these help.
Isaiah 47:1-2. Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones and grind flour, "put off your veil", strip off your robe, uncover your legs, pass through the rivers.
(So as we can see, even virgins were to keep their heads covered and save their hair for their husbands. Otherwise it is like they are showing all their nakedness).
Numbers 5:18. Then the priest shall stand the woman before the LORD, "uncover the woman’s head," and put the offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse.
Also Genesis 20:16 says in the Hebrew
Then to Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; indeed this is "a covering for her eyes" (to put back on her wedding covering) you before all who are with you and before everybody.” Thus she was rebuked.
From what I understand In Genesis 24:65. Rebekah covers herself because the bridal price has already been paid. 2 vrs later we see Isaac take Rebekah bright away into his tent. There was no wedding ceremony. Her covering herself was an outward show of her marriage to Isaac. Since they were married he was allowed to take her right away into his tent and "uncover" her.
Also, just a thought, and you can take it or leave it, I personally don't think the verses are only for married women, as in the Greek it never uses the word for wife, or husband, just man and women. And if read 1 Cor 11:1-16 it wouldn't make sense for the word to mean wife. For example if wife and husnabds were used instead of man and women instead, 1Cor 11:12. ) For as the (wife) is from the (husband), even so is the (husband) born by the (wife); but all things of God.
A husband cannot be born by his wife.
(The word in Greek used in 1 cor 11 is= guné, meaning, "a woman, women, wife, my lady, a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow.)
Also, as a woman's hair is her glory, (doxa- honor, renown; glory, an especially divine quality, the unspoken manifestation of God, splendor) we should not be putting our glory/ hair on display before the LORD. Only God's glory should be on display. That is what women (married or unmarried) are called to cover. Because it is about humble respect when we come before the King of Kings, and LORD of Lords.
Tamar veiled her hair and face. The face was covered so that the "prostitutes" face couldn't be seen.
Also, not sure if you are interested or not, but I would suggest checking out "Garlands Of Grace," or "Glory and Grace," for nice Christian headcoverings. I love them.
You could also start off small if you are feeling God calling you in that direction with wide head bands, scarves, bandanas, hats, or stretchy workout headbands/ ear warmers as well? I use them too. Just a thought.🤷♀️🙏💗👍
Hi Rachel I have a short essay that I would like to share that I hope helps with your research. It breifly covers bible version, the meaning of the words cover and uncovered, etc, the odd church belief that women who do not wear a veil should shave off their hair (even if they have long hair), the logic behind verses 13 and 14 among other things.
It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. Therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise.
* Where the problem usually begins…
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for not doing so and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off.
Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered (meaning has short hair) would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair “without” a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved.
* Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, 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."
If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” 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?"
If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. 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. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"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 asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there is something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding, we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ”
I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
The holy spirit told me to cover my hair......
Kinda miss when my country's women used to wear black veils when there were funerals in the old days. It kinda looked cool and scary but now some people wear inappropriate clothes in church and in funerals.
halleluiah
i used to cover my head while i am praying now i wish to cover everytime praise to be lord
May you be blessed and may Our Lord make your path easy.
My problem always seems to be verse 16 of 1 Corinthians 11.
My pastor doesn't believe we should do this. He believes our hair is the veil. I Want to do this. I've decided that, if I cannot wear a covering in church, I will not pray. But my husband has allowed me to wear it at home. Thank God Almighty for that. I need prayer. I have thought perhaps they will let me wear a wool cap in winter. But I will not be prophesying. I will hold my peace. I have long hair and I'm of the belief that my hair is for my husband. Perhaps if I wear a snood, it'll be allowed ? I'd rather obey God than man. Blessings.
If you can, go into a study and look back at the Greek text in 1 Corinthians 11. Once it’s broken down in Greek it becomes much clearer that Paul is referring to artificial head covering and uses a different work in Greek for covering (when referring to women’s hair being their covering) than he uses the rest of the chapter when referring to an actual head covering. So if Paul was clearing trying to state that women’s long hair sufficed as a head covering, wouldn’t he use the same word in verse 16 as he does the rest of the chapter? - it definitely makes you think a little harder about what Paul is trying to get us to understand! - I will be praying for you, that is a tough situation for you to be in and I will admit I am nervous of wearing my head covering at church as well, so I wear a nice hat instead, but hopefully one day this can be normalized. It doesn’t bother me if other people choose not to wear one, so why is it a big deal if I choose to wear one? I think it boils down to pride, which is unfortunate.
If this portion of scripture is talking about hair talking about hair then your pastor should be shaving his head when he praise and prophesies. 1 cor 11:4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head.
Here is a bit of what I know hopefully if it will help you and maybe even your pastor?
1 Cor 11 is pretty clear that a woman should cover or veil her head in public worship. The word for covering in 1 Corthians 11:4, 5,6,7, 13, is the word, katakalýptō, from katá, "down, and kalýptō, "to cover"-cover down, to make appropriate (complete), i.e. to wear a veil.
It is the root word used for the veil that separated the Holy of holies from the priests.
The root word is also used in 2 Cor 3:13. "not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end."
But only in vrs 15, where Paul is giving an example from nature is a different word used, "but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering."
This is different word from the others for "cover"= "peribolaion," that which is tossed around or a mantel that can be thrown around the shoulders and body (As in when a women tosses or throws her hair around).
Cover in the first few verses of 1 Cor 11, should really be translated veil as that is the proper Greek word used.
This is where we get the English saying, "Let your hair down."
Becuase during the "sexual revolution" women let their hair down out of their buns, uncovered their hair and shook it back and forth. Which is very alluring to man.
If hair is the covering as some people say, should all men be bald or can they take their hair off and on? No obviously not. This is why men take their hats off in church or at baseball games, etc.
Plus the veil or covering is it be an outward, visible symbol to the angels of us coming under God's authority structure. Since all women have hair, hair is not the symbol. We therefore, must put an actual covering or veil on our head as a symbol that we are coming under authority to remind good and bad angels, since angles cannot read our hearts or mind, but they can clearly see a veil or covering. It is to show the angles that we are in obedience to God's order. (As Satan rebelled because he wanted to usurp God's authority). Also, it's because angels are in church services and they can't see our hearts, but they can see a veil. Angels partake in the gathering of the saints and want to look intently into our worship time. (1 Tim 5:21, 1 peter 1:12, Rev 2:1, 2:8, 2:12, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 3:14).
Up until only the last two generations woman covered in Church. All of our grandmothers would have covered in church. Amd many outside the church as well, in everyday living. This is why the Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, the orthodox churches, a lot of African congratations, and Messiniac Beleivers, etc still cover their hair.
Here's some verses in the OT about head covering. Hope these help.
Isaiah 47:1-2. Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones and grind flour, "put off your veil", strip off your robe, uncover your legs, pass through the rivers.
(So as we can see, even virgins were to keep their heads covered and save their hair for their husbands. Otherwise it is like they are showing all their nakedness).
Numbers 5:18. Then the priest shall stand the woman before the LORD, "uncover the woman’s head," and put the offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse.
Also Genesis 20:16 says in the Hebrew
Then to Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; indeed this is "a covering for her eyes" (to put back on her wedding covering) you before all who are with you and before everybody.” Thus she was rebuked.
From what I understand In Genesis 24:65. Rebekah covers herself because the bridal price has already been paid. 2 vrs later we see Isaac take Rebekah bright away into his tent. There was no wedding ceremony. Her covering herself was an outward show of her marriage to Isaac. Since they were married he was allowed to take her right away into his tent and "uncover" her.
Also, just a thought, and you can take it or leave it, I personally don't think the verses are only for married women, as in the Greek it never uses the word for wife, or husband, just man and women. And if read 1 Cor 11:1-16 it wouldn't make sense for the word to mean wife. For example if wife and husnabds were used instead of man and women instead, 1Cor 11:12. ) For as the (wife) is from the (husband), even so is the (husband) born by the (wife); but all things of God.
A husband cannot be born by his wife.
(The word in Greek used in 1 cor 11 is= guné, meaning, "a woman, women, wife, my lady, a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow.)
Also, as a woman's hair is her glory, (doxa- honor, renown; glory, an especially divine quality, the unspoken manifestation of God, splendor) we should not be putting our glory/ hair on display before the LORD. Only God's glory should be on display. That is what women (married or unmarried) are called to cover. Because it is about humble respect when we come before the King of Kings, and LORD of Lords.
Tamar veiled her hair and face. The face was covered so that the "prostitutes" face couldn't be seen.
So you based you're faith on god if the pastor allows you to wear this? If you want to go ahead but don't force everyone to do too! The church people during acient time said this not god!
@@mom4christ191 Your comprehension is very bad cover means to not go out naked and to cover the prostitutes face is not because god wants to it's because it brings her family shame and dont want them to recognize her as the girl they slept with
I'm coptic Orthodox. All women and girls are expected to veil during liturgy and required to when receiving the eucharist.
I find head coverings really stylish-but in a good way . theyre waaay better than the loose hair left dangling and untied, which is so common these days.
I cover my hair comblytly , I wonder why Europeian laugh at hijab they forgot them ostoms
Smile, thank you for speaking on this. I felt called to cover my head about two years ago during my private devotions and now that I do, I feel so much more peaceful, calm, content, and respectful towards my husband when I cover my head/ hair.
I think modern "feminism" (which is extremely destructive to not only women but also to marraiges, children, families, and the church) and this teaching is very much needed.
Here is a bit of what I know hopefully if it will help, if anyone is interested?
1 Cor 11 is pretty clear that a woman should cover or veil her head in public worship. The word for covering in 1 Corthians 11:4, 5,6,7, 13, is the word, katakalýptō, from katá, "down, and kalýptō, "to cover"-cover down, to make appropriate (complete), i.e. to wear a veil.
It is the root word used for the veil that separated the Holy of holies from the priests.
The root word is also used in 2 Cor 3:13. "not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end."
But only in vrs 15, where Paul is giving an example from nature is a different word used, "but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering."
This is different word from the others for "cover"= "peribolaion," that which is tossed around or a mantel that can be thrown around the shoulders and body (As in when a women tosses or throws her hair around).
Cover in the first few verses of 1 Cor 11, should really be translated veil as that is the proper Greek word used.
This is where we get the English saying, "Let your hair down."
Becuase during the "sexual revolution" women let their hair down out of their buns, uncovered their hair and shook it back and forth. Which is very alluring to man.
If hair is the covering as some people say, should all men be bald or can they take their hair off and on? No obviously not. This is why men take their hats off in church or at baseball games, etc.
Plus the veil or covering is it be an outward, visible symbol to the angels of us coming under God's authority structure. Since all women have hair, hair is not the symbol. We therefore, must put an actual covering or veil on our head as a symbol that we are coming under authority to remind God's angels since angles cannot read our hearts or mind, but can clearly see a veil or covering. It is to show the angles that we are in obedience to God's order. (As Satan rebelled because he wanted to usurp God's authority). Also, it's because angels are in church services and they can't see our hearts, but they can see a veil. Angels partake in the gathering of the saints and want to look intently into our worship time. (1 Tim 5:21, 1 peter 1:12, Rev 2:1, 2:8, 2:12, 2:18, 3:1, 3:7, 3:14).
Up until only the last two generations woman covered in Church. All of our grandmothers would have covered in church. Amd many outside the church as well, in everyday living. This is why the Hutterites, Mennonites, Amish, the orthodox churches, a lot of African congratations, and Messiniac Beleivers, etc still cover their hair.
Here's some verses in the OT about head covering. Hope these help.
Isaiah 47:1-2. Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on the ground without a throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans! For you shall no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones and grind flour, "put off your veil", strip off your robe, uncover your legs, pass through the rivers.
(So as we can see, even virgins were to keep their heads covered and save their hair for their husbands. Otherwise it is like they are showing all their nakedness).
Numbers 5:18. Then the priest shall stand the woman before the LORD, "uncover the woman’s head," and put the offering for remembering in her hands, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that brings a curse.
Also Genesis 20:16 says in the Hebrew
Then to Sarah he said, “Behold, I have given your brother a thousand pieces of silver; indeed this is "a covering for her eyes" (to put back on her wedding covering) you before all who are with you and before everybody.” Thus she was rebuked.
From what I understand In Genesis 24:65. Rebekah covers herself because the bridal price has already been paid. 2 vrs later we see Isaac take Rebekah bright away into his tent. There was no wedding ceremony. Her covering herself was an outward show of her marriage to Isaac. Since they were married he was allowed to take her right away into his tent and "uncover" her.
Also, just a thought, and you can take it or leave it, I personally don't think the verses are only for married women, as in the Greek it never uses the word for wife, or husband, just man and women. And if read 1 Cor 11:1-16 it wouldn't make sense for the word to mean wife. For example if wife and husnabds were used instead of man and women instead, 1Cor 11:12. ) For as the (wife) is from the (husband), even so is the (husband) born by the (wife); but all things of God.
A husband cannot be born by his wife.
Also, as a woman's hair is her glory, (doxa- honor, renown; glory, an especially divine quality, the unspoken manifestation of God, splendor) we should not be putting our glory/ hair on display before the LORD. Only God's glory should be on display. That is what women (married or unmarried) are called to cover. Because it is about humble respect when we come before the King of Kings, and LORD of Lords.
Tamar veiled her hair and face. The face was covered so that the "prostitutes" face couldn't be seen.
* Starting Off on the Right Foot…
It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise.
* Where the problem usually begins…
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil and assumes that such a person already has long hair and is wrong for not doing so. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off.
Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered meaning has short hair would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair without a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to believe to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved.
* Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, 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."
If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as “short” 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?"
If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. 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. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"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 asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is no excuse not to understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ”
I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman have short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to covering as long hair and uncovered to mean short hair.
Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
I think there will be a revival of modesty soon... we all see where it’s going right now, and ‘know’ that this isn’t right!
It will get worse where is your mind running to? As if they would get back to modesty
@@dv4740 History always repeats itself. i'm seeing more and more modern Christians invest in head coverings and with the clothing trends of gen Z these days, it's starting to get more and more modest again.
It's just not Bible believers that are wearing, they're in almost all cultures.. they're beautiful and extension of your personality 😍 ❤️
There is nothing wrong to wear a headcovering or veils it shows a willingness of even more submission to our lord n stand for morals even more so in these days of a preverted n crooked generation that dislikes godly ways n choose ungodly lives. We are Christians as for myself i belong to God n need to be set apart and not conform to this worldly ways even to a symbol as lovely as a viel and follow God ways and wills into our lives. I enjoy my coverings with honor glory and respect for my lord unto this world. To remind me that I was bought at a cost paid my heavenly father that he gave his precious son to the world, and for me. It is a shame that men and women who are blinded by the devil to seek other physical identity bc they have lost there identity to false pleasures n sins that lead to death or much sufferings to themselves and there families. We were formed in our mothers womb by the lord as a man or woman. Not exchange wat we don't like. Ppl must search within themselves the true root of there hurt n pain n seek the lord for healing n truth n unity among family members. Putting God as the center piece to uncover the damages the devil has come to kill, steal, n destroy with complete deception of ppl identity in christ. We have a father that has given the truth through his son Jesus christ the gospel. If we deny the truth into our lives than we deny christ and all his healing, deliverance, eternity n etc. Thank you lord that the truth sets us free. So plz ppl of God don't quarrel over such headcovering or veils but keep pursuing the lord veil or no veil pray for those that need to see the truth of Jesus to change there lives.
Except for the Father and Son thing,
I agree with everything.Keep seeking truth and commit to it even if the world is against you.🙏
Not wearing veils or scarves isn't UnGodly! if you really read the bible it doesn't say to wear them! It's the church who said that! UnGodly means doing bad things jesus is with us not by the clothes we wear but the good deeds we do! It was popular in the acient world because of their beliefs if you really look into it it's the people who said that not their gods
wearing head piece could actually make you stand out nowadays
Yes. You'll unfortunately stand out in most churches, too.
Not if it becomes popular again.
Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the
the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head
when praying to God.
If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair
each time before prayers, or of course, be bald.
Amen. Sadly many still try to deny this and make the passage sound silly with their modern interpretations. I think they are afraid of offending woman. But a woman that loves God is willing to submit under Him. I used to pray with a tallit(prayer shawl) but Paul said that it is a shame for a man to do so. So I stopped praying with one. likewise mens hair should not go past the shoulder or perhaps shoulder blade. Woman and men hair length are very distinguishable in most ethnicities from childhood. Nature teaches us the right order that God intended.
Thank you for this video.. May God bless everyone
Great job on this video! When I'm asked about my head-covering I prefer to go into the history of women wearing coverings, rather than the scripture, because these people were already misinterpreting the scripture, therefore wouldn't respond to it.
@ Mother Giselle . yep, i discovered this after years of arguing 1Cor 11, i realized the best way is to point CHURCH LEADERS and Christians to Early Church Practice and their view of 1Cor 11, plus all the warnings in New Testament that the Churches will become corrupt in this last days, false teachers EVERYWHERE even among those who follow 1Cor 11 outwardly.
I'm going to start doing that too!
@ Lauren Almeyda . that's good but it's more than something "to start DOING", it's something TO BE INSIDE, something of your consciousness/being that you are in private without the outward keeping WHEN CHRISTIANS GATHER. 1Cor 11 is not saying that woman cannot be naked/uncovered in prayer; in private woman can wear whatever but when Christians gather, one of the teachings in 1Cor 11 is that: women should have a covering over their hair, and not intend to show-off any part of their body or adornment. See Luke 7v37-40, 11v39-40, Gal 5v6
Absolutely and Christianity has a long history of headcovering. Unfortunately, too many sinply go with the flow od modern styles.
WOW. It was shockingly immodest for womens hair to be uncovered at one time? That is something! Says a LOT about our culture today! SAD.
I really amazed too. I used to think the cover up like a Muslim woman was oppression,I dont think that now
Yes it does. I started veiling twelve years ago and am glad I have.
@@231natasha I have. always veiled in church, have worn a Khimar style head covering when outside for twelve years now. I have after long prayer and thought added a face veil though of course Cristian women are not required to wear that. I feel blessed when I do because it preserves my privacy and helps before I from getting distracted
I have always been turned off by on modesty and love that in stricter Orthodox Churches ladies are required to dress modestly.
@@231natasha You don't think it's oppressive to tell women that if they don't cover their hair , it's their fault of men harass them?
@@Smithpolly what does that have to do with veiling ?
Our religion doesn't teach oppression,where did you get that from?
And then “Christians” attack Muslims for wearing it. Go study your own religion before attacking others
Yeah, if you realize something is ridiculous and stop, don't criticize others for forcing their women to do it 400 years later?....Wait......Does that include burning "witches" too?! LOL
Christians once executed people for being gay and would not let women vote. So you think we shouldn’t criticise cultures that still do that crap?
Saffron Sugar 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
you do realize there's problems with every religion?
I applaud them for being modest even if I don't agree with what they believe.
I am Catholic and I wear a head covering [veil] at mass. I belong to a more traditional mass where many wear a veil. I sing at a Novos Ordo church and sadly I am the only one who wears one.
Good explanation.Still in South India all the women inside church wears head cover,scarf,veil,burka cloth till now.Even my family all my sisters and mother wears head covering. Without head covering no one will enters our church. 🇮🇳🇮🇳🙏🙏
Read all about it on TH-cam: "1 Corinthians 11:1-16: Head Covering Debate: The Greater Glory Revealed" Parts 1-6
I cover and I love it!!! 👍👍👍😀😀😀
I cover and I love it also! :)
@@loispappademos4369 Me, too!. God loves when ladies are modest.
in the religion of Holiness, there’s still a strict stand on having the women’s heads covered to this day (First Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ)
Glory to God! Hallelujah! ❤️🌿👣
Amen Brother
I remember being little and mu mum taking me to church. She wore a hat until the 1970s. I also remember her dressing me in my best dress and a hat and gloves. I became Catholic and later, Eastern Orthodox and I never quit .
Are you Muslim now? Cuz your profile picture is actually islamic dress
@@khadija.m3192 I am Christian but cover fully. No one religion owns hijab or niqab. There were even orders of nuns who until recently wore a veil over the face when outside.
I have been wearing modest dress and hijab for eleven years now and about two years ago began to feel led to increase my modesty. After considerable thought and prayer, 14 months ago, I began to cover fully when going out as I believe this is what God wills for me.
@@harrietharlow9929 So you do believe Mohammed was a false prophet and is not of God and Jesus is the Son of God?
@@yesnomaybeso5755 Yes. I cannot do otherwise and remain Christian.
@@yesnomaybeso5755 I believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died on the cross for our sins.
I veil because I'm modest by nature and in imitation of Our Lady who should be the model for all Christian ladies.
Don’t you think covering you face is a bit much? Though not sinful, to can out a wall between you and other you may wish to be a witness to. Also, it makes a way for evil people to copy your idea for evil. They could cover their faces to not be recognized/recorded doing criminal things.
@@reflectionsinthebible3579 I'm not in control of what evil people do. They will find a way to be evil no matter how I dress. I wear a face veil brecause after though and prayer, I believe this is God's will for me.
Why do you have a Niqab as your picture? That is beyond modesty, that is oppression.
@@lennydale92 I don't think it's your place to tell me how to dress. It would be opression if I were forced to wear it, but I'm not. What you see as oppression is for me a blessing.
@@harrietharlow9929
I am asking why you wear it. Its an item of clothing from oppressive societies and not part of Christian tradition.
I just started wearing a head covering yesterday, I'm not married. What kind of head coverings do Christians wear?
There are no specific details in the Bible about what size or shape of cloth that women should wear on their heads. Because of this the assumption is that there is room for creativity and adapting to the situation. Just as we see Christians of past ages wearing many different styles there is still much variety in headcoverings today. If you are not part of a denomination that has given guidelines to it’s congregants you can search “headcovering styles” and choose the type you think is best.
The Bible seems to connect headcovering to married status so it’s likely that an unmarried woman doesn’t need to wear one. But if the Holy Spirit is leading you to cover your head then follow your conscience.
@@daringtheology2678 1st Corinthians 11 says "every woman" not just married women.
@@JesusLightsYourPath The Greek word for woman is somewhat ambiguous and could be translated "every wife" instead of "every woman." Whether or not unmarried women should wear the covering has been discussed and debated from the early church on, so there is certainly a case to be made both ways. Rebekah putting on her covering once she saw her husband (Genesis 24:65) is part of what makes us personally, believe that it is a sign of marriage. Again though, there does not seem to be any prohibition against an unmarried woman wearing one, so those who are convicted to, should go ahead and wear them. "For whatsoever is not of faith, is sin." (Romans 14:23)
@@daringtheology2678 I appreciate your advice. I see this is something God wants all of us to partake in. It also says "for the angels" mentioning the angels that lusted after women. I will always listen to what God says over what mankind says, people will debate scripture for the rest of our days but God wouldn't convict us of something that He hasn't already told us to do through the scriptures.
@@JesusLightsYourPath
Just like Muslims
This is interesting. I know my granny who was born in 1914 never went out without a scarf on her head, and she never once wore trousers. She passed away in 2008. Interestingly i dont recall her going to church although she had a faith. I dont think the head scarf was to do with her faith so much as it was just considered indecent not to have one, and was as routine to her as putting on shoes.
Praise God!
Love the video, please do more on the topic
sounds like a report for Western religion class in college ...hum
The head covering was also practical in the middle east bc it has so much desert areas. Women had long hair and nobody wants sand in their hair, so that's definitely practical.
1 Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If she has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off.
So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is further proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God.
If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to shave his head each time before prayers, or of course be bald...
King James Version: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
Your translation seems to be off it does not mention "while assembling" so that's strike one. Then you say that "If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to shave his head each time before prayers" but the scriptures states: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. They are saying that man ought not to have his head covered in LONG HAIR doing something LIKE praying or LIKE prophesying. It doesn't say they were exclusive they were examples. So it has nothing to do with something being put on or removed. Just don't have long hair that COVERS the head. That's strike two.
You seem to not get that they are saying that the covering is long hair that hangs down and to be not covered means to have short hair, not shorn or shaven just short hair.
@@JohnYoder-vi1gj Amen well said!
@@JohnYoder-vi1gj If a woman has no hair because of illness, and the cultural environment around where she lives thinks that a female has no hair is very bad, then she should cover her head by something, is that right?
@@ojokagiso219 I think the issue is not about something out of our control like an illness. From the context of the passage it must be referring to those who choose to wear their hair long on men and short for women. That is why Paul said we have no custom. This is about choice. Not sure what cultural environment you are making up but I think if they are hanging out with fellow believers they would all understand the medical situation.
@@JohnYoder-vi1gj there's that lovely protestant line "I THINK" not "the bible says" or "tradition says" or "the church fathers say" or "Christ said" it's always "I, one flawed individual who thinks he knows more than all the fathers and bishops and councils and monks and apostles combined, have interpreted the bible to be saying this"
Not married woman wear head covering girls in puberty cover their head in church still stands including me
Great explanation on the history to share with others! :)
This was very good. Thank you, Ricky & Amanda!
Enjoyed this video as my search started with just wanting to learn a way to wrap my hair & then ran into videos if doing this was cultural appropriation.
It’s the end times and Jesus is coming back. God is merciful & compassionate- men are merciless and with little compassion in dealing with humanity- it’s rules smd regulations! God has been asking me to pour out his love. I saw a homeless person asking for help- he looked truly desperate , so I gave him all the cash I had. His face was dumbfounded! Right before that, I noticed a person thst looked like he needed encouragement so I spoke to him. What the world forgets is God is ❤️
Have we all forgotten how to love! Love rules! In the end God is Love not rules!
🙏blessings…from India ! Let’s share the love of Jesus !
Nothing about custom or culture from scripture: View on youtube "1 Corinthians 11:1-16 Head Covering Debate: The Greater Glory Revealed verses 10-14"
This almost 4 hour video?
m.th-cam.com/video/TETe_QVqymE/w-d-xo.html
Scripture and tradition teach this . Even men used to wear hats , unless at prayer or in church , just as the New Testament teaches . There was a huge rebellion against this in the latter 20th century . Thankfully , many in the historic churches are returning to this practice .
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That they are wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil.
If there where only two exclusive moments then one should have no problem if an “unveiled” woman speaks in tongues, interprets tongues, heals the sick, casts out devils, etc., right? Following such logic it stands to reason that the other instances that I mentioned should be acceptable WITHOUT a veil, right? Now should they say NO, then they should admit that there may be more instances; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, to be false. Please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that EXPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. People ASSUME this because they are misreading scripture.
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 she is uncovered, in other words not covered in long hair.
Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real life scenario. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Did people really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? I am not saying this to be funny, but people have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved. Given that this comparison seems illogical one should consider that someone may be reading it wrong. For if “uncovered” means “short hair” then it fits the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair) then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved, since it is already short.
So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven than to being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman is somehow equal to being shaved. Please don’t dismiss this logic think about it for a minute.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women as well as headship. Bit as far as the physical head is concerned the question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say all of 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."
If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation. If we are to make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them without having to start studying Greek.
* 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 into 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. Again, don’t dismiss this think about it.
Be honest, does looking at a woman doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying, that 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 like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"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 by OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (aka short hair) while praying and a man having long hair. I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head “COVERED” in this verse refers to “LONG HAIR.”
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 the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is being exclusive to two actions instead of seeing them as two examples. As stated 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. The same should be understood 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.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off, ESPECIALLY in this verse, as it offers no examples or “supposed” exclusive conditions. In this instance it is to be understood that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. Keep in mind that short hair is NOT the same as being shaved. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
Unfortunately people tend to get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seems like some kind of headwear but do not consider all the verses that show that the “covering” means long hair and that “uncovered” is to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
"unless at prayer or in church"
Indeed. Women could also be uncoveredwhen not praying or at church
Sodality, Not sure what you mean by "historic" churches? Actually, I haven't seen any evidence that more churchgoers are following the interpretation of women wearing some kind of head covering. In fact, I'm seeing just the opposite even among those who tend to be well-known veil supporters like the Mennonites. The conference Mennonites have left this man-made "church" practice.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter lovely scriptural analysis, but this is exactly why sola scriptura is a serious issue. You can interpret and interpret to make the scripture agree with you even though we know it to be fact that traditionally speaking all Jewish and all early Christian women veiled, and it is a tradition that has passed down in the Orthodox and (up until recently) Catholic churches (which are the only two churches with an actual claim to apostolic succession). The Mother of God herself veiled, it is a know fact. No matter how much you contort scripture it's a known thing that at the time it was dishonourable for women to be outside the home without modest dress and veiling her head, and this is a tradition that we are expected to maintain at the very least in church today
@@JohnYoder-vi1gj i don't know where you got the idea that Mennonites are a historic church, they're about 5 times removed from the apostolic tradition. The Catholic church maintained the practice of women wearing veils in church up until Vatican II, and even still it's making a resurgence among traditionalists, and in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Chruches (as well as the Church of the East, I would assume) it has never 'gone out of fashion' and has been the expectation of all women in the Orthodox church since it's inception with the apostles
Watch old footage from Victorian Britain the women also used to wear veils but it didn't go out of fashion it came to an era when Queen Victoria passed away but most Christians still wear them but Muslims spread lies saying there don’t
I love this! It is so helpful.
I love this !
You're right that the 1917 code of Canon law said women must cover their heads in church. The 1983 code was silent on it. So that 1917 law was in force all that time and it didn't really fall away till the 70s or 80s due to feminism. It's coming back though. This was great thanks 😊
The 1917 Cannon law says that it is desirable that a woman cover her head, not mandatory.
@@Abby-bc1er With respect the "desirable" wording refers to men and women's separate seating. The wording regarding head covering is the mandatory "shall"
Canon 1262
§ 1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in
church.
§ 2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bareheaded, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine
otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when
they approach the table of the Lord.
Can I know if any Christian Preachers still cover their hair and Preach? If yes Name please
Indian preachers do cover their head.
Christian preachers should be men and therefore should not cover their head while preaching.
In short, we women should go back to feeling and being completely women. Honest married women shouldn't dress like today's fashion dictates to dress. We should not wear pants, especially if they are tight, we should not wear miniskirts, necklines, shoulders out and we should always go back to covering our head, chest, and legs up to the ankle.
In spite at our century, I hope we are going back to ancient traditional clothing. Veils and modesty for women were not only part of christian tradition, they were part of almost ancient cultures.
You do you and shit but being a complete woman doesn't just come with modesty. It can come with anything. Clothing does not define a woman
Religous freedom means let people do what they believe. So women should have the freedom to choose to cover their hair or not.
Hell no to all that! I like pants and my short hair
🥰🌹Beautiful 🥰🌹
Thank you for your work.
Thank you for this short blessed video.
Hi Adriane! How’re you doing:)
way to go sister..... ptl....
Can a scarf work? Or a bonnet? Because I definitely don’t know where to get a veil if amazon doesn’t work.
You can find some on Amazon. There are some links on the religious hippie channel
* Where the problem usually begins… (I)
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil.
A typical question from those who are against hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot.
So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off.
Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being shaven than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Think about it.
* Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II)
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, 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."
If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic.
* You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III)
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?"
If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. 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. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"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 asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ”
I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
Amazon has various styles, and the Head Covering Movement channel on TH-cam can also be of assistance to you.
I would not recommend the Head Covering Movement as they are a cult that has made head covering into a type of Idolatry.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter vs 5 if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved. But if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered be long hair. Your logic makes no sense. The arguement of hair being a testicle makes more sense than your logic (Dr Heiser podcast #86). Besides, these days it is not a shame to have short hair. So should I ware a covering because I have very short hair in the summer time.
Thank you for sharing 🖐️♥️
Amen! Good documentary.
Thanks! This was really nicely done! 😘
Not a fan of head wear, great history
Amen! Great video. 😁
Wow
Headscarf is not for covering hair only, headscarf is also use to covering chest from others eye. However women start to change her mind to not wearing headscarf because nobody wants to protect the headscarf culture, and because Christian law become less practice in western.
No. Christian head covering never required the chest to be covered.
Harris Syah you are kind of adding words to the Bible! Plus clothes already do that. Muslims use their hijab to do that and Jesus called us to be separate from the world
Haris shah, agreed, its better to have extra coverage on the chest area other than cloth and bra only👍
It was never Christian law. It is not in the New Testament. It was just cultural sexism. The Bible does not tell women to be ashamed of their bodies.
(1 Corinthians 11:13-16)
Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-nor do the churches of God.
@@MFLimited Thank you. Some men seem to be so scared and disgusted by women's bodies. They must be terrible lovers! It's upsetting to them that we even have female bodies.
Great information ❤
This video although sincere is pretty lacking and very much only focusing on the mainstream washed out and western perspective. Please do not present culture as if it has died out if people still practice continuously.
It does not say to cover your head all the time. It clearly says when you are praying, or prophesying.
Every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-it is the same as having her head shaved. 1 Corinthians 5-6.
We are told to pray without ceasing, that is why it was adopted full time
@@angieruthw You don't pray 24/7.
@@abbyfoe8999 who said "24/7" lol no one is saying that. Wearing it throughout the day while praying throughout your tasks, nothing wrong with it.
@@angieruthwEastern Orthodox Christians try to meditate on the Holy Name of Jesus (the Jesus Prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me"), aiming to ceaselessly make every breath a prayer. If you see videos of Russian Orthodox ladies in church they're always wearing veil/headscarf, often outside of church too. God bless you dear Sisters +
@@mrsnkg7904 Thank you for pointing this out about the Jesus Prayer. Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me, a sinner.
Per farla breve, noi donne dovremmo tornare a sentirci e ad essere completamente donne. Le donne sposate e oneste non dovrebbero vestirsi come la moda d'oggi impone di vestirsi. Non dovremmo portare i pantaloni, specialmente se aderenti, non dovremmo portare minigonne, scollature, spalle di fuori e dovremmo tornare a coprirci sempre la testa, il petto, e le gambe fino alla caviglia.
The teaching of Jesus Christ change by pagan Roman and paul worship god direkt not trinity god.
lol no
Proof?
"6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.
7 For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man:
9 for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:
10 for this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.
1 Cor 11:5-10 (ASV)
and yet some christians call muslim women “oppressed”
@@za1d80
Only the ignorant ones, void of Spiritual Judgment!
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.
Why are you spreading misinformation and twisting the teachings as they are written in the Bible? 1 Corinthians 11:15
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.”
The veil is nice and I personally like it; BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY and according to the above noted teaching, NEVER WAS.
Consider all of 1 Corinthians 11, particularly 5-6: “but every wife[c] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.”
If the long hair is enough, why does Paul say that if a woman prays uncovered, it’s as if she had a shaven head?
@@erincoughlin4187 - Yea, good question. It seems contradictory as per the 1 Corinthians 11:15 noted above. Maybe it is just married women who are required to cover their head, seems so.
I like the veil, as I said in my comment above, I was just pointing out the full context regarding a woman with long hair.
Another aspect of 1 Corinthians which speaks of men not having long hair etc; yet in every picture depicting Jesus
also some translations say every woman i’m confided as to if this only refers to a woman and her husband only or women and man or single women with God being their head
@@Tanaeaa Why do some say these passages refer only to married people?
Now I’m sure some will reply saying the glory of the woman (aka the long hair) was only meant for the husband to see. This belief is not because of some scripture that details this since it does not exist. It is mainly due to misunderstanding of the word “woman” to mean wife. The same can be said for the word “man” to mean husband. Since we cannot find a place that says that the woman’s glory was only meant for the husband to see we should set that theory aside.
The words “husband,” “wife,” “marriage” or anything similar are not found but some will claim that that is what they are referring to. This is a classic case of reading more into what the Scriptures are actually stating. But the way it is structured gives the strong impression that it is referring GENERALLY to ALL men and women NOT just married couples. Some people have stated that the words “man” and “woman” are interchangeable for “husband” and “wife” but if we read the context of the passages, we can see that this cannot be the case.
For example, verses 8 and 9 delve into the order of creation, which obviously includes everyone whether they are married or not.
“For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women.
“EVERY man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. But EVERY woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
You will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts if one were to exchange the words above for husband and wife, because then it would seem like all the single men CAN wear a covering or all the single women can be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
Lastly, how can one navigate these passages correctly if one were to claim that the words they are reading do not mean what they state? How can one tell when they read the word "man" they really mean "a male person" and not “husband” and the same thing goes for the words: woman and wife? If one were to argue they were referring to married couples, then how one can expect anyone to believe what they read? The logical thing to do is to understand what they mean by the context of the verses and in this case, they are referring to ALL men and women. - FA
@bonpearl5334 not contradictory Jesus was a nazarene. They don't cut their hair while they do God's work. They called him the nazarene, not a nazarite but still nazarene meaning he's like a priest without being levite. They put it avive him on the cross and the Pharisees git upset because it means Jesus is king. You also have to understand Paul is sarcastic. He writes put his sarcasm and conversation with all of tgat and asks questions that are implied. Jesus was Jewish he would have covered his head. It's in christ all things are complete and only then can man go before God as a priest himself uncovered. All glory except God's glory is covered when coming before God out of reverence
* Starting Off on the Right Foot…
It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the Bible version one is using. For example some translations add the words “…a symbol…” while others do not. Also some use the word “wife” instead of “woman” or “husband” instead of “man.” Whereas other versions like the King James Version never uses the words “wife” or “husband.” For some the chapter supposedly refers only to married couples and still others believe it refers to men and women in general. In addition it delves into the creation order (See verses 8 and 9). A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of the chapter. therefore, it’s best to use only the King James Version in this matter, which seems to be simpler and more concise.
* Where the problem usually begins…
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching 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 those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil and assumes that such a person already has long hair and is wrong for not doing so. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. But one should keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off.
Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaven. So be honest doesn’t it make more sense that if a woman is uncovered meaning has short hair would be more closely relatable to being shaven than someone with long hair without a veil to be equated to being shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to believe to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equated to being shaved.
* Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: Are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, 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."
If the covering is long hair then to be “covered” which is synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as “short” 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?"
If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. 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. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature.
"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 asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is no excuse not to understand the previous verses.
By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4:
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ”
I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood 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.”
Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6:
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman have short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to covering as long hair and uncovered to mean short hair.
Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?
Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
1 Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If she has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off.
So hair and the covering just cannot be the same thing.
Indeed, this is further proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God.
If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to shave his head each time before prayers, or of course be bald...
@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 The question for some who are against hair being the covering is usually this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The response to this is: Where did you read the word: Only? Such a person is assuming exclusivity instead of seeing it as simply two examples being given. If you truly believe in this exclusivity interpretation then a woman should be fine if they don’t wear a veil and speak in tongues or interpret the tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if a woman is doing this has her head uncovered. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also. please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off.
PS the word "assembling" is not in the KJV which you should read as well as all the other verses as it does not have all the words from the "NEW" versions that trip one up. "For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered" (Not covered meaning not covered in in long hair). 1st Corinthians 11:15 is the key please read it.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter You make good points that the intent is likely to be covered always, or nearly always and that "assembling" is not in the context. I don't get why so many people immediately assume this is only for church when the passage says nothing of the sort.
Yet, when you look at the Greek, the word family (katakalupto) or "cover" is used throughout the passage except in one place. That one place is verse 15 where it says "her hair is given to her for a peribolaion." Paul carefully distinguishes her hair (peribolaion) from the type of covering (katakalupto) he talks about in the rest of the passage by using a different word in his comparison to nature.
In fact, if you trace peribolaion through the quote of Psalm 102:26 in Hebrews 1 verse 12, you find that it correlates to the Hebrew word "leboosh." "Leboosh is the word used for Christ's undergarment that had lots cast for it in Psalm 22:18. So "her hair is given to her for an under-covering" would be a reasonable reading. An under-covering should be covered by another covering as Christ wore an outer garment over His "peribolaion."
There is a reason why, as this video goes through, not wearing a veil has been pretty much unheard of throughout Christian history. The passage has been clear to every culture until relatively few decades ago.
@@joshuawilliams5348
When it comes to the topic of head coverings I’ve never seen so many people make the point about how head coverings were a “cultural thing” or that the “historical evidence” shows that SOME women wore some kind of headwear for centuries and that due to certain social or cultural movements (like the feminist movement) people started to drift away from it. There are several videos online of lengthy discussions of as to how long women had been wearing something on their heads for centuries and then show how only recently women began to stop wearing them, usually because of an introduction of some evil. This is used to somehow show proof or credence to their beliefs that women ought to wear a veil or something. This is by no means a proof of any kind. One CANNOT use practices that were done by various peoples for various reasons, performed for various years as proof. If one has to resort to going outside the scope of the scriptures to prove their point then their evidence was likely very thin to begin with. Please note that Evidence that is OUTSIDE the confines of the Scriptures is NOT THE SAME LEVEL AS SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE.
Often cited are the facts that there are many ancient pictures or paintings of women wearing some kind of headwear. But again what people did in the past is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches; plus people wore headwear for all sorts of reasons, it doesn’t mean that they were abiding to Scripture either. Again, length of time of a practice cannot be used as proof. For example: The fact that people believed in using CRUCIFIXES and performed INFANT BAPTISMS for CENTURIES does not mean that we ought to accept such practices. (Feel free to Google this.) Wouldn’t those who believe in this use the same reasoning as those who point to history to lend credence to wearing veils? Of course they would. False doctrines have been around for centuries, therefore, how can anyone use paintings, photos or even writings to prove their interpretation of Scripture is correct? All it shows (like crucifixes and infant baptisms) that people can be wrong for a very long period of time. One can even point in the New Testament where people were already misinterpreting Scriptures and teaching others false doctrines. Therefore, what the people did, however long ago, does not prove that what they practiced was scriptural truth. Therefore it is irrelevant if women in certain parts of the world wore something on their heads for many years. What matters is what the Scriptures teach.
When some people refer to the idea that it was the culture of the day to wear veils it is often to disprove it. Meaning it was a true thing to follow at the time but not for today. They will sometimes also add that since it was written in 1st Corinthians the “covering” doctrine was ONLY meant for those who lived in Corinth. This is also a flawed interpretation, because first it accepts the misinterpretation of veils as a covering when it is long hair. Second, it is wrong to think that these passages were meant for a specific group when it is clearly understood it was meant for all men and women by the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman…” in verses 4 and 5. Add to this the fact that it mentions the creation order in verses 8 and 9 then there is no doubt IT MUST BE APPLICABLE TO ALL!
If you go online and listen to others about this subject you will find an array of unsubstantiated stories of how people thought about wearing or not wearing a veil meant. As an example one TH-cam video has someone relaying a story about how some believe that the first century church viewed women going without a veil as equal to being topless! Shocking as this may sound this is what some denominations believe with no biblical proof whatsoever. Another shocking story (based on a book) is that some believe that the only women that went around without a veil on their heads were prostitutes and was the reason 1st Corinthians 11 was written. Some use the story in Genesis that Rebecca covered her head when she approached Isaac’s home, as though they knew exactly what she was thinking when she did this. Others believe that married women had to wear veils to show their marital status. Some will point to a “historical” book which “opened their eyes” that women had to wear veils. In one instance I found online an individual who would rightly say that we don’t need other books to understand the Bible, but then quote so-called “Christians” like Tertullian for a lengthy amount of time as though what they wrote was law. (See 2nd Tim 4:3) This is a contradiction. Besides how can we trust what they wrote was true? Or, how can we be sure there wasn’t any bias in the author’s writings? Or if what the people did was because of a misinterpretation? If such ideas cannot be biblically substantiated or if they require a lot of biblical manipulation to try to fit into their narrative then it should not be received as truth.
So what does it imply that one has to go BEYOND THE SCOPE of the Bible to prove their point? It implies that READING THE BIBLE IS NOT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND certain truths. I cannot stress this more because this is very important and that for ANY topic not just about head covering. If someone asks you to read or hear something historical than what is in the Bible to get a better understanding, then they are implying that their argument is so thin that they have to resort to other sources.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter First off, I did not appeal to history as a REASON for veiling. I appeal to history to show that most Christians throughout time have had understood this passage as being about a cloth covering. I agree that there have been persistent errors in church history, so this evidence carries less weight, yet to contradict an understanding that dates back to the early church should not be done lightly or without significant biblical evidence. I listed the historical position last in my previous comment, because it is less weighty, though it should still be considered.
I also agree with you that Paul was talking about something that was more than just culture and should be applied through the ages, just like I agree with you that the passage is not talking about solely within the church assembling time.
Another passage that can be looked at to show that Paul meant it to apply beyond ancient Corinth is 1 Timothy 2:8-9 "I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;"
Men are to pray in a specific way and then "In like manner" (meaning pray again) "the women adorn themselves in modest apparel" and "not with broidered hair." Notice that the modest apparel is contrasted with decorating the hair! In other words, to wrap the hair modestly makes sense as what he is recommending and it is in the context of praying while so covered just like in 1 Corinthians 11. The Greek word for apparel there (katastole) is also sharing a root with "Katakalupto."
On top of that, in the law of jealousy in Numbers 5, the woman is to have her covering (which according to 1 Corinthians 11 is associated with her husband) removed in order to answer directly to God regarding the accusation of her infidelity.
Also, your response seems to have ignored the points I made regarding the Greek words in 1 Corinthians 11 making a distinction between "katakalupto" with a cloth and the hair being only a "peribolaion" which is really the strongest argument for veiling.
When one looks at these other scriptures and the Greek words used, the argument for veiling is quite strong just from scripture alone.
It probably changed to fashion
Went casually looking for some information on European mediaeval headwear......................... found the most sexist, misogynistic comments section in the universe 😳
thats unfortunate :// sorry you had to experience that
i dont think its misogenistoc or sexist.. its out of respect for God
I don't think you realize that you didn't type sexist but sexiest, aka the most sexy...
By your standards?
@@angieruthw
Juuuuust realized that autocorrect
Wrote “sexiest” when I meant to write sexist. Oh no.
Yes, there are a lot of sexist comments here, in my opinion.
Surah An-Noor Ch. 24 v. 21
Hijab is not Christian copy.
Not exactly. But Christianity and Judaism predate Islam, and Mohammed was influenced by the Jews and Christians whom he knew. Really more accurate to say that the head coverings have a common ancestry, all being from the middle east.
@@jdemian6952 no, right religion is from the first human existence. It is the straight path. We believe Adam is Muslim and out Prophet is the last messenger.
@@jdemian6952 and Muslim believe in all prophet Adam to Mohammed s a w.
We all believe in Allah
@@jdemian6952 Arab Women already had Head Covering. Islam teached the Muslim Women to also Cover the Neck and all the Body as the Arab Women had just Hair covered and Neck and Ear where open
@@jdemian6952
Muhammad Amin was unable to read and write, he could not have copied from Judaism and Christianity
The teachings of Judaism and Christianity were revealed by God, but Christian Jews distorted it, so it is normal for there to be similarities
Most of the commenters wants back modesty & headcovers.
Insha-Allah It'll be brought back by muslim womens.
There.are Christian women who veil and a few' like myself, who cover fully. I pray for modesty to become common for Christian ladies again.
@@harrietharlow9929 I'm Christian , Christians nowadays starting reading bible , and i myself , i start reading bible until i read about modesty and veil head covered in the bible , so Now I'm in modest and covered my hair when I'm in praying or prophesies , ,,
Sister Your not alone , pray and pray , a lot of Christians now learn to be modest ♥️
And of course, men. I think it's shameful so many men go out in public showing their hair for everyone to see.
@@Smithpolly women's hair and men's hair have 2 different impacts, not the same
@@Smithpolly women ☕
All Christian woman should wear face veil or hijab
sunny John Why? not very convinient. What are men wearing?
Nope. That’s completely unbiblical.
No! Wearing a hijab infact is objectifying women.
Religous freedom means let people do what they believe. So women should have the freedom to choose to cover their hair or not.
Muslims they did not adapted from anyone its command from their God through their prophet Muhammad peace upon him. But sure the God is one so the command is one too 😉👍
Same God, same basic commands throughout the Abrahamic religions, just in a different language and adapted to cultural nuances. But facial coverings like the Niqab were born out of environmental necessity from sand storms, as the men wore them and head coverings as well. Spent 2 years of my life in Afghanistan. Day 3 I was in a full scarf and niqab as well because that sun plus the sand storms are PAINFUL.
Niqab maybe in Afghan culture thing but in Islam is not, it was a command just for prophet Muhammad's wives to wear it for their rank and position as the prophet wives... While prophet Muhammad's daughter Fatima was not commanded to do that she never were niqab only hijab.
@@margauxf4321
Muslims believe in really one only God
Christians believes in 3 different gods
Muslims believe each person is responsible for his own act
Christians believes jesus is responsible for their act and therefore he must die to forgive their sins
Muslims believe that jesus was saved as he was praying for God
Christians believe jesus was crucified
There are many differents , I'm open for discussion
You got this and other beliefs from Christians as the Old Testament was the first book to be given
@@notyourbusdon't mislead
Islam is the true religion. Learn Islam through the right Islamic sources and at mosques. Be muslim, so we can be in paradise one day Insya Allah.
@• Royal Strawberries • what force? I never know..lol
And if I refuse, what will be my punishment? I see you are good at quoting the Qur'an. Would you mind answering my question honestly? I can also quote the Qur'an accurately and am interested in how you respond.
@@matthewbrown9029 there will be day judgement for all mankind. Unbeliever and evildoer will be in hellfire. Hypocrite people will be in jahannam. If you and your family are unbeliever, you all going to get punishment.
Also see the sirah of our Prophet during Mu'tah War against 200,000 Rome army.
th-cam.com/video/RKoxMJjAcc8/w-d-xo.html
any religion that does not acknowledge Jesus as king is not a “true” religion
@@matthewbrown9029 same can be said for Christianity