340: Should Christian Women Wear Head Coverings?! The SIMPLE, Biblical Answer
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ธ.ค. 2023
- Join us HERE for the Prayer Gathering-- each Wednesday at 11 AM EST!
Click "Notify Me" so you don't miss it! • Lifting One Another Up...
More Biblical resources on Christian women & headcoverings- hope this can be a help!
www.gotquestions.org/head-cov...
• Should Christian women...
• Q&A-10 Head Coverings...
Get our FREE Hanukkah Resources guide! 🕎 bit.ly/3uMLIeo
Learn more about Hanukkah, where we see this in the Bible, and how, as Christians, we can celebrate this Festival of Lights!
🌷 Join the HMH Collective & start our Heavenly Minded Contentment study: th-cam.com/users/heavenlyminde...
Join us for our 1 John study! Any level $5 & up will get you access to ALL! More Here: • Join Our Study: Heaven...
👩🏻💻 Helpful Links:
🏡 Learn more about our family & ministry: heavenlymindedhome.com
🥰 Help support this ministry, serving families all around the world! bit.ly/39RR2CS
💌 Get the Monthly Newsletter: eepurl.com/hYYwiL
📖 Get the Family Bible Curriculum: bit.ly/3QBten2
📦 NOW ON AMAZON- Get the Family Bible Study: amzn.to/3PHKFRy
💸 Freebies, Savings & More: bit.ly/3dQd6j1
🌿 Bible Studies, Discipleship Classes, and MORE! / aphomeministries
🌷 Join the HMH Collective: th-cam.com/users/heavenlyminde...
🎧 Listen to Heavenly Minded Home Has A Podcast: bit.ly/3OMgDwP
📚 Join us for co-op: gotohmh.square.site/
🛒Visit our shop! heavenlymindedhome.com
Instagram: / heavenlymindedhomeschool
Facebook: / heavenlymindedhome
📺 Helpful Chapters:
0:00
♥ Is there something our family can lift up in prayer for you? Let us know!
Glory to God for all! 🙌
--- Our future, our eternity, our salvation is THE most important, we'd love for you to take a moment and visit this site for more: calvarychapelkaneohe.com/abc-...
![[UNCUT] รัฐสั่งหยุดปล่อยคลื่น! แต่หยุดพลังปะทุ “น้องหญิง” ไม่ได้ I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RmQh47eIiV0/mqdefault.jpg)
I have extensively studied this topic. I have come to the conclusion that head covering is Biblical and it is only in recent times that women have stopped. Our salvation does not hinge on this commandment by any means, but covering my head is a small thing that I can do to Honor God. The Bible says to cover for prayer. So my belief on it is that if you feel in your heart a conviction to cover for prayer, then that is what you should do. Don’t allow it to become a vanity and pride thing though; keep it small and simple and humble. And I also don’t believe that we should judge the women who do not feel the same convictions as ourselves.
That's exactly my point it sure not going to condem you for .. 1 way or the other
I have also done an extensive research on this topic and have written a 40 page essay and can conclude that the covering is NOT a foreign object but long hair. Here is a small excerpt:
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
* You Should Naturally Know Right from Wrong by Just Looking….
If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to:
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be “uncovered” should mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL should pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Why should the lack of a veil make a praying woman not have a “pleasing appearance” (aka look comely)? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is important so please don’t dismiss it.
Be honest with yourself do YOU really believe that the average person will look at an unveiled, praying woman and naturally think a VEIL is missing or would make her look unpleasing? Are we to assume that Paul expected the average person to have instilled within them the idea that a foreign object is missing from a woman? I have never seen or heard anyone say something like: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head?” after looking at a long-haired, praying woman. To so do would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right that there is an unpleasing appearance. I think I can say with some assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a short-haired woman from behind especially if we are not sure if the person was male or female. It seems like a natural reaction especially when we were young.
Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong: whether it be OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (a.k.a. short hair) while praying or OBSERVING a man having long hair.
In addition, by using the word “NATURE” one can’t even use the excuse that perhaps they were expecting only Christians to see something different. Clearly, if “nature” teaches us that something looks off then it must include all of mankind as nature teaches all of us both Christian and non-Christian.
I would like to also add that these verses are NOT jumping from the discussion of a “veil” in verse 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in verse 14 like some would like to argue because you will note that verse 15 refers again to the woman which FLAT-OUT STATES the “covering” is to mean “long hair.” Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses are referring to hair length. By this, we can understand verse 4 which states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered as I previously mentioned.
I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due to the false interpretation that the verse is exclusive to two conditions instead of seeing them as two examples. As mentioned before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR.
* Did people really view unveiled women as someone shaved?
I know this question sounds weird but I’m not trying to be funny, veil promoters have literally stated that Paul (and likely others at the time) viewed unveiled women as though they were shaved based on 1st Corinthians 11:5. Why would anyone think that a woman, who typically has long hair, be equated to being shaved if they did not wear the alleged veil? It doesn’t make sense and when confronted the typical response is that that is just the way it should be accepted. To them, it simply doesn’t matter if it seems illogical.
So, let’s follow the logic of verse 5 based on the idea that unveiled women are equated to being shaved. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Looking at this woman would you really think that you are looking at someone who is shaved, just because she is not wearing a veil? Do you really think Christians really looked at unveiled women this way? Doesn’t that seem unrealistic and odd?
But if “uncovered” means “short hair” like a typical man’s haircut, then it would make much more sense. It seems more feasible that a woman with short hair (aka uncovered) is likened to being “shaven” than someone who has long hair and without a veil.
In other words, it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven bald rather than being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even if she has long hair) is somehow equal (or “likened”) to being shaved as veil promoters claim. I am almost always shocked when people don’t understand how this view is unrealistic and illogical.
Is it true that veil promoters believe that if a woman is not covered in a veil, she should have her head shaved?
As similar as it may sound to what we spoke of earlier regarding the equivalency of a woman’s unveiled head to being shaved in verse 5, in this case, it is about literally shaving a woman’s head in verse 6 as a form of punishment. Now I cannot say this for all veil promoters, but I have been told, by many of them, that this is what the Bible teaches.
“For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.”
This verse is also often misinterpreted when it is simply mentioning in the same tone that if a woman has short hair, then yes let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shorn or shaven let her be covered in long hair. Yet veil promoters take this verse and have construed it to believe that back then Christian women were disciplined by having their heads shaved or cut if they did not wear a veil when it says no such thing.
Ok, let’s review this and put this in perspective. So, in verse 5 they believe that an unveiled woman is likened to a person whose head is shaved (which is an illogical comparison), and in verse 6 some believe that if the woman is not veiled that her hair should be shorn off as a punishment regardless of whether her hair is long.
When confronted about this extreme approach in verses 5 and 6 some head covering supporters do not deny it, as though this were normal. Yet when explaining that to be uncovered means to have short hair and covered means to have long hair, it is often regarded as though it were weirder than the extreme and illogical conclusions they claim to believe.
Agree completely.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter No choice but to agree with your thesis. Enjoyed the reading.
Heidi, the hair "given as a covering" is pointing out the natural covering in this passage. I do believe Paul is encouraging this church(and all churches, 1 cor chapt one!) to do what he commands in this book. Including women covering their heads in PUBLIC WORSHIP during a church setting. If a woman is praying or prophesing in church setting, can she remove her HAIR after the service? Ok of course not. She removes her covering after praying or prophesing.
Amen! I biblically agree with you @joyfulacres5484.
yes i agree
Amen 🙏 Perfect answer! Thank you sisters!
Well with all due respect there are a few misconceptions in your comment. First it doesn't say if a woman is doing such things in a church setting. There is no church setting withing the verses of chapter 11. Some tend to lean on this idea because praying ans prophesying is supposedly marked as worshiping moments. Yet I do not find that either or marked as evidence of worship. Think about it where does it say that prophesying is a form of worship?
And if you are mentioning that praying is a part of "public" worship wouldn't that be in contrast to Jesus's teaching that prayer is to be done in secret? Now you do make a valid point about a women having to be covered when praying or prophesying if they were exclusive. But I wouldn't assume that it would seem that Paul was merely giving two examples let me explain.
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by some to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promoters form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are also basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter In the bigger context, when you read chapter 10 before it, and starting in 11:17 where it says, 'when you come together' it seems ALL of this part of the letter addresses their behavior as a corporate body and how Paul needs to correct things they are doing. So this headcovering issue appears to be, in context, related to public behavior.
Having said that, the statement Paul makes about it being shameful for a woman to have her head uncovered when praying is definitely something that each woman would feel a personal conviction about. For some women this is a long process to work through.
Your comment was very thoughtful and I enjoyed working through it, I just wanted to add my own perspective as someone who has studied this topic for three years and came to the conclusion I should be covered.this
I've covered for 6 years now. Its mostly during church service. I always viewed it as covering MY glory (hair) so that only God's glory is seen during worship. 1 cor 11 says to cover while praying/prophesying. The decription of hair in 1 timothy could just be women not praying, so they have their veils off. Just a thought.😊 I found the history of covering quite interesting as well. Women not covering seems to be quite a new thing.
That’s exactly the main reason!! I was so excited to learn about this and even more to hear someone else understand the beautiful reasoning behind it. 😍
Absolutely- that's wonderful!
Paul tells women not to remove their veils at church. It's the sign they are married. It'd be like a wife taking off her wedding ring when she goes to church. For us culturally wedding rings are our outward sign we are married. Taken!
I've been covering for around 15 years and have never regretted it. I respect other women who choose not to cover their heads.
I cover for church and prayer as well. I did a lot of studying on it and felt convicted about it. I realized it was a very small and simple thing that I could do to honor God.
It all started when I was watching a random Mennonite Q&A on TH-cam. Someone had asked "why she wore that thing on her head". Her response was simply that it comes from 1 corinthians 11. I had to pause the video. It was in the bible? I opened it up and read it. It seemed really clear. I had never heard any teachings on it in the church and had never heard of it, always figuring people who wore it was just a modesty thing in their sub-culture religion. ANYWAY, I went down a rabbit hole trying to find the reason why it doesn't apply today and the reasons i found all just seemed really lame..then I learned that Christian woman covered their heads pretty universally for almost 2000 years! It's been weird being the only one covering at church but I can't pretend it's not there now that I know.
The best part is I was convicted in that I realized I'd never read the whole Bible cover to cover. So I did. This seemingly random topic brought me deeper in the Word and I am so thankful to the LORD for getting my attention. Glory to God ❤
Was it Megan Fox? She's a Mennonite I watch and began my own research for the very same reason you did! ❤
@jennylhenry78 Yes, it was Megan!
About 8 or 9 months ago, I don't remember exactly, I started researching head covering, and it seemed clear that women are to cover during the public gathering for prayer and worship. This began with me getting more serious about the Bible but at the same time my husband was pulling further away from me and ended up moving out at the end of May and then forcing me to move out since it was his house. I'm drawing closer to God, but now I'm in the process of getting a divorce! I now go to a Messianic fellowship, and now I'm not the only one who covers. It seems kind of ironic that covering has uncovered how broken my marriage was.
Aww. Praying for you and your family!
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
Within the context of the rest of the Epistle, Paul continues in the same format of presenting questions, and offering biblical wisdom. We can't JUST look at those verses. Paul was absolutely saying, "This is what we do, this is why." The "judge for yourselves" was not an open invitation to say, "that's fine for some but not for me," it was a rhetorical device he'd used multiple times to make a point. The inference is that these things are obvious from God's created order, and being contentious about it makes no sense, nor does adopting any other practice, because all of the other churches participate in worship in this way. Why this particular set of verses is so controversial today is likely because of the feminist mindset and the call to change what we think and how we behave as women in the congregation of believers.
Personally, it is not that big a requirement to physically don a reminder of the spiritual truth that God is the head of my husband, and my husband is my spiritual head. In fact, the physical reminder puts me in a mindset of humility and reverence before the Lord in worship. If I have the opportunity to walk in greater obedience to the Word of God and to participate in a practice held by the first century churches, why would I not?
Amen sister!
Agreed :)
Amen!! I also mentioned that you have to read the whole letter at once and not just that part. When I finally sat down with my husband after a few years of wrestling it all made sense to me and now I headcover at church or any worship.. But I would never condemn or judge anyone else who decided not to. It’s my own conviction that I’m following to act accordingly.
Well said! This isn't optional, but universal. Jesus put the apostles in charge until he returns, 1st Peter 5:1-5.
Great video! This is an issue a lot of us are wrestling with right now. It's not the hill I'm going to die on- I don't see it as a saving issue- and I'm really not even out to change any minds. I will share, though, that I've actually flipped on this issue and I'm the only one at my church who practices head covering, but I wear a simple headband at my husband's request. I changed my mind when I looked back at church history and realized it's really only very recent that women haven't worn head coverings, which made me question why we went away from it. RC Sproul speaking on the topic also won me over. It's a hard issue to tackle. I'm trying to stay humble about it because there are strong arguments on both sides and there are lots of people I respect on both sides.
If it was a big enough of an issue for us to divide over... scripture would talk about it often! ;) I personally had asked my husband about this years back and if it would be something he'd like me to do-- his answer was an adamant NO.
XO
If your husband says, no, then that's pretty easily resolved 🙂@@HeavenlyMindedHome
I am the only one who head covers at my church also… I have a lace wrap that was used in my wedding and felt it was perfect to use. So I do may hair in different ways but always have that on for corporate worship/church. I don’t feel compelled to wear it any other time but it is more of an obedience to the wrestling I felt over the years with it and once I sat down with my husband and we went over the scripture and where I was at spiritually, he was supportive. Let me tell the you the moment I began this journey with it the amount of stuff that has come up to challenge me in it has been wild. Interesting when we make more room for honoring Christ whatever that looks like for people, how the enemy likes to try and defeat you.
@@HeavenlyMindedHomeI have to disagree to your argument that if it was a big deal that Scripture would mention it more often. Take a look at how many times the ordinance of taking the Lord's Supper is mentioned. Once. Yes, it is mentioned once, also in Corinthians 11 (not including the description of Jesus having the last passover before he goes to the cross).
I'm sure we can all agree that taking communion is an important ordinance and yet is only mentioned once.
Baptism, too! @@jennylhenry78
I had to stop the video half way through to explain why a woman's hair is not her covering.
#1 the word cover is used 6 times in the passage
Five times katakalupto (covered) / akatakaluptos (uncovered) is used
In verse 15 the word cover is a different word, peribolaion
Even though English translates both Greek words as cover, Paul uses a different word to distinguish natural covering to artificial covering.
#2 If long hair is to equal covered then short hair equals uncovered.
V6 NASB
For if a woman does not [have long hair], let her also have her hair cut off
V6 ESV
For if a wife will not [have long hair], then she should cut her hair short.
-obviously if a wife wont have long hair then she has short hair, so if its short then how can she cut it more?
#3 Paul is only concerned with covering at specific times (prayer and prophesying) must be that it is a removable covering to put on and take off not something permanent like our hair.
#4 Hair is a woman's glory; natural, permanent, glorious. Long hair is an adornment and a “glory” (v.15).
Covering is a symbol of authority; artificial, removable, symbolic. A headcovering conceals or covers glory (v.7, 15).
Hair and Covering are antithetical or opposite of one another, they cannot be the same thing.
-When we pray of talk of the things of God (prophecying) only Christ's glory should be shown. Man is the glory of christ which is why his head is to be uncovered. Womens glory is her hair and it should be covered as to only give glory to Christ.
#5 Not wearing a covering is new. Churches in other countries still do it today. It is only since women's liberation in the 1960s has the US churches stopped covering.
I have read more than a half a dozen books on this topic and have purchased several more to continue studying. I suggest also studying more indepth on this topic.
Excellent! I agree wholeheartedly (and have also looked into it extensively).
Women are also the glory of man. (:
Amen!!! All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Amen! I hope more will read this comment.
So why didn't Jesus rebuke the woman washing his feet with her hair?
@@stephaniejazzy7359 She used her glory to perform a lowly act- washing someone's dirty feet. Last time I checked, the people who endorse the hair being the only covering are anything but humble about their glory in such a holy presence. So it's not just about seeing that she used her hair but what was she using it for? That still doesn't change the apostolic decree given later. Even Christ later gave the command to baptize but the timing doesn't discount the decree.
Kindest regards
I was diagnosed with breast cancer two years ago. During chemotherapy, I lost all my hair, and I felt it in my heart to cover my head and not allowed my husband or anyone to see it, until my hair grows back. ( only my mom saw my head uncovered) because she helped me take showers after surgery. My husband was not ever able to see me without the head covering until my hair has grown back, and I looked feminine. He insisted many times to see my head and asked me to remove the head covering even a night time when we went to sleep, but the Lord made it okay in my heart to not let my husband see it, I felt the need to preserve the purity and to honor my husband and most importantly when I prayed I felt better when my head was covered. And to be honest I had forgotten this part of the scripture during that time, but that's what I felt the Lord put in my heart. Now that my hair has grow, I pray with out ceasing to my father anywhere, at any moment with out the head covering with the beautiful hair that my Lord gave back to me. Praise God!! ❤ I don't idolize my hair, I lost it once and it was well with my soul. I'm just grateful!
[15] But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
But if she doesnt cover her hair, then she should shave it off, verse 5. So her hair is a glory but it still should be covered or its a disgrace according to Paul. And blessings to you that you are healed!
First, I am sorry that you had cancer and had to go through chemotherapy. It must have been a very tough moment but praise God that you are delivered. You mentioned that you felt you needed to cover it until your hair grew back which is totally understandable especially given the medical circumstances. I think we are in the same understanding that God gave women long hair for a covering and now that you have your covering back there is no need to cover your head with something synthetic. Though it seems like a commenter appears as if they want you to keep wearing something synthetic due to a misquoted verse. As it says “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” Which is a tie-in from verse 5 which states “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her HEAD uncovered dishonoureth her HEAD: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” So it’s not about covering the hair but covering the head which hair obviously does.
In many churches, the problem is dressing as if one is ready to mow grass or clean the garage! People aren’t preparing their hearts or bodies to meet God in worship gatherings.
Look up Barbara O’Neil she knows a cure for cancer. Cantor oil on a towel and wrap it around the affected area.
Castor oil*
I’m glad that you referenced God’s created order, not appeal to culture as it’s often used. There is a distinction between veiling and hair and this chapter references both. Our covering is not exclusively hair. The covering is for praying & prophesying. The hair is not put on and taken off each day, as a veil. It’s “yes and”.
When I did a massive study on this, women throughout centuries wore veilings and it wasn’t until the feminist movement it began to stop. If I recall it was called the Easter Bonnet Rebellion or something like that. Of course, it’s a heart issue because all can be taken to extremes and done for show not for the glory of Yah.
Yes- it has definitely been more cultural norm for a long time. :) Not that any of us are called to live by works, definitely not an issue of salvation.
I thought the veil was for married women? It'd be like a wife taking off her wedding ring. For them a veil meant they were married.
There is a distinction between veiling and hair and this chapter references both. Our covering is not exclusively hair. The covering is for praying & prophesying. The hair is not put on and taken off each day, as a veil. It’s “yes and”. Completely true. I don't think it's a command, but I do think that those of us who are convicted need to obey.
@@Rivkah_of_the_Remnant Boom! Exactly my views on it!
@@HeavenlyMindedHomeRemember the verse « show me your faith without your works and I’ll show you my faith by my works» and Jesus’ exhortation « Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven. »
Please do a word study on « works » and « good works »! We WILL be judged by works! Repentance and faith are both works as well. It’s just that salvation itself requires a supernatural work of God to be accomplished. It’s a « working together WITH God » to put it Biblically.
How about « Well done, thou good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of thy Lord »?
Mike winger has an excellent long video on this topic. Very worth watching every minute
It depends on what you think is "excellent". Many women call something excellent because it agrees with their take on something and as this is such a controversial topic perhaps you should clarify why it's 'excellent'. I have found him to often have a modern, shallow take on things and had to stop pointing people to him a while ago.
@@TakeItPeasy i wouldn’t call a 6 hour video on this one topic shallow.
@@capturedbyannamarie I watched most of his video and though he mentions several ways people have interpreted he fails to give a definitive answer on the subject. You should read the comments from those who watched the whole thing who came out confused because Mr Winger never says whether women ought to wear a veil/hat or not. Plus he never went in depth on the subject of hair being the covering. That went too fast in my opinion.
Yes- but he concludes that it's not for today simply because we don't understand it's meaning the same anymore. But, this is faulty logic. The reason we don't understand it because the church has failed in teaching about it. It would be no different if we failed to stop teaching about the meaning of the bread and wine/juice.
I recently tried to wear head coverings this year and my goal is to get over my fears of people looking at me funny and wear it full time! I am Christian woman and I have done a lot of research on head coverings and how it really used to be such a common thing up until feminism unfortunately. I think it’s more about modesty, showing your approval of gender roles, being submissive to your husband and doing what most women did for thousands of years until feminism destroyed everything. Should you wear it at church? Absolutely! All the time? Not totally necessary but I think should be highly encouraged. That my opinion!
Please be encouraged. You are not alone. You are a catalyst for God's daughters to return back to doing Bible things in Bible ways. Look at all the women in church history, and know that you're among a great cloud of witnesses. 😊
Don't allow people to influence you because church history as it can mean anyone from Catholics to Anabaptists.
Here is a small sample that can help you to research more thoroughly on this subject.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
I hope you're becoming more content and strengthened in your journey to obey the Messiah and his apostles.
😊
No need to fret God will not judge you whether you wear a veil or not. Paul was referring to keeping the tradition of long hair on women. If you do you are good to go. Wearing a veil is completely ok by the way as long as it doesn't cross the line into thinking it is a doctrine or something.
If the topic Paul is teaching is about men keeping their hair short and women's long then wearing a hat or not does not matter, when praying or prophesying. Unfortunately today some have chosen to think that 1 Cor 11 is about a hat or veil when this is all about hair lengths. At no point does Paul introduce any noun that clearly identifies as a hat or veil. Keep that in mind when you read the Scriptures.
I feel like maybe this is a thing every needs to pray over and really seek God in. He really leads us to what we need. When I was truly saved 3 years ago I was on my face in my room repenting and I heard a voice tell me to cover my head while praying. I then wore a cover continuously for a year and then received confirmation from our father that didn’t need it except for prayer and worship.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 7…
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue.
Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix.
“For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold.
This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband.
So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
So WHY do you expect others o believe your "experience" over what the WRITTEN and COMPLETED WORD OF GOD already said!?!... You can hear many kind of voices... but that does NOT mean that it is coming from GOD! ...
Your experience is NOT "the Way, the Truth and the Life"! ...
@@ronelaalexe4857 I don’t expect anyone to believe me. I expect everyone who wants truth to pray earnestly to be led by the father. Shalom.
Thank you for sharing your story of obedience. Be encouraged 😊
@@marriage4life893 "story of obedience".... whatever that means!...
I would love to hear your take on women wearing skirts. I think it ties in closely with head-coverings. women are meant to look like women and it’s obvious to everyone if a woman is wearing a modest skirt/dress. I’ve also heard people refer to the scripture about being a “peculiar people” and it’s very true. When we dress modestly, people assume you are a Christian woman. I live in the South and everytime I go out wearing a modest dress or skirt, I have people asking me where I go to church and talking about the Lord to me in public. But, I think it also goes back to the heart of the matter. I don’t believe that pants are a sin by any means, I think that pants CAN be modest, but in the end… Are skirts more modest than pants? This is a constant battle in my mind that I’m trying to figure out where I stand. I have really felt like the Lord has been dealing with MY heart about this issue and I have felt more led to wear dresses and skirts. But I don’t look down on anyone for wearing pants ever. I truly mean that. I just want to do the Lord has dealt with me about and do what’s within His will for my life.
Right! I believe like you that it is an individual choice to wear skirts or pants. I personally prefer skirts. I like the more feminine look. Also, the way my body is shaped makes me feel like maybe pants hug my curves too much. The comments I get from men when I wear pants versus skirts tells me that I should probably be wearing the skirts.
Yes! I’m immediately more respected by men in public. I also think that being more covered is more respectful to my husband because everybody doesn’t need to see everything I have. Lol I also think that God made women’s body beautiful and we all know that men are visual creatures. There’s a verse in the Bible that says we are not to be a stumbling block for our brothers. They’re responsible for their thoughts absolutely, but we are also responsible to a certain extent. That’s totally my opinion and I understand everyone doesn’t think the same.
I live in an area that has cold fall/winters and random weather throughout the year. So wearing dresses and skirts all the time, I’d freeze. I’d still have to wear pants under them. I’ve always worn pants and still have been seen as feminine. You can wear a cute top and accessories.
@@StrawberryJamJam29 Respectfully, wearing a cute top and accessories to be feminine in pants isnt the point. That's what women in the world already do and that isnt setting yourself apart as this poster is seeking to do. The main issue is about pleasing God. If you don't feel that conviction that's fine. But for some women, it's about wanting to feel obedient and pleasing to God and the culture is so strong to fit in we actually feel bad about wanting to wear just skirts, thinking we need to apologize for it. That's how far we have fallen away from our feminity and God given roles.
@@StrawberryJamJam29 I used to think similarly to you at one point in time, especially when I first came into the Apostolic Pentecostal faith. It is finding the right skirt for the seasons that matter. I stay warmer in my denim (pants/HD Jeans weight) Skirts than I do in actual blue jeans. Some women uses like the Jeggings/Leggings under their skirts for additional covering. In the winter it, the skirt, holds the warm air in between your legs rather than blowing with the wind so much keeping you warmer than when wearing pants. Also historical ladies used to have quilted petticoats(underskirts) that were blanket like for additional warmth. Its all about the material, Garments, and layers that you choose to use. A good floor length flannel skirt will keep you pretty toasty with minimal weight.
Shalom! I belong to Russian -Ukrainian Baptist Church. I had a chance to visit Israel for four times when I was single. I really liked how Jewish women cover their heads. In my community married sisters cover their heads in church and some would wear in public. So, as I was learning about Jewish religious head coverings I really understood what apostle Paul is saying. After Jewish women is married and doesn't want to wear a fabric covering, she shaves her head, and wears a wig that is made out of her own hair or any other wig. So Apostle Paul is saying if you don't want to wear a covering- shave your head! Who is going to want to go bold headed? No one! That's why we either were a wig or a fabric covering. Because hair that is attached to your head naturally is not a covering! Since I learned that, now that I am married and have seven sons, I wear a fabric head coverings everywhere! I do see blessing in it. I do think that everything in the scripture is important for our salvation! Obedience to God's word is going to bring us to heaven. Heavenly minded sisters understand that ❤. I look at it as a honor. We don't have to wear a fabric head coverings, but we get to wear a head coverings, just like a King gets to wear a crown. We get to dress modestly! We get to be home makers! And so on... I now encourage women to do so. Apostle Paul knew the roots of head covering privilege to married women. This was never cancelled! At the same time Man should wear their hair short. Christian woman should never cut their hair short, if she does, she either has to wear a wig or a fabric covering. God bless you all sisters in Christ! And thank you for reading my comment!
Ephesians 2:8 KJV
[8-9] "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works..."
Romans 3:23 KJV
[23]" for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; "
James 2:10 KJV
[10] "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. "
I don't believe he was just talking to Corinth. He says, If anyone wants to be contentious (argue) let them know there is no other practice, (what practice? Headcovering) in all of the churches of Christ. Meaning every church practices it. Its not just a rule for Corinth. 🤷♀️
No- never said it was a rule for Corinth, simply that we must understand that this was a letter written to a specific group addressing specific things. We can absolutely glean truth and instruction through-- but we need to remember we're reading someone else's mail. :)
@@HeavenlyMindedHome Yes but all the churches practiced it, not just Corinth. Something occurred that caused Paul, not only to commend them for practicing it but to reiterate why they practiced it. Early church fathers confirm that head covering was practiced through out all the churches. It was a universal practice with universal and transcultural reasons.
@@HeavenlyMindedHome
1 Corinthians 11:16
[16] If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-nor do the churches of God.
All the churches practiced this. Now the contentious ones rule the roost. Satanic inversion.
As church, we literally partake in communion. As church, we literally immerse into water. As church, we should as women literally wear a veil during service while praying or prophesing. Simple.
All church mandates in this book1 Corinthians
Appreciate your comments @joyfulacres5484. Shame there are some commenters not humbling themselves and causing strife while proclaiming Christ.
Yes!
The short answer is YES. :)
Look historically and globally and it will become SO apparent! Western Christianity is the anomaly. *Not* covering is an anomaly, friends.
When I was born again after repenting last year, the Holy Spirit completely transformed my heart and also convicted me gently to wear modest long skirts and veil my head. I also stopped wearing adornments like makeup and jewelry. It’s never felt like a religious thing, and I haven’t felt some kind of carnal disdain for those who don’t. On the contrary it’s humbled me and made me want to share the beauty of it all with other women who want to walk closer with Jesus!
I’ve never felt closer to the Lord! I encourage you to seek the Lord on this, everyone! You may be surprised! I saw an excellent video where a girl explains this really well with a broad historical context. I’ll try to find the title and add it to my comment.
Friend, you are teaching this wrong and should be careful. We will be held accountable for what we teach. I exhort you to seek the Lord on this and do a more thorough study. The original text uses two different words for covering in this passage. Hair is NOT the covering to be used. Please do a word study. Try Adam Clarke’s commentary (eSword app has it). He defers to other commentators who have very helpful things to say. Look at early Christian commentary and teachings on it too. There is a consensus. That only changed with feminism. Anabaptists have good teachings on this too. Also, it’s not a preference thing. It’s a command for all true Christian women, with an appeal to creation.
As for the fancy hairdo Scripture later on, that doesn’t contradict previous Scripture, creation appeal, or millennia of Christian practice. Women could have easily spent time on and focused on hairdos AND covered. They’re not mutually exclusive. Coverings may not have concealed the front of the hair, for example, or may not have been worn in limited contexts, like in the home at certain moments. Even fully veiled, a woman could have been overly focused on doing her hair before covering. Biblical veils were loose anyway. So no contradiction there. :)
In the Old Testament, the unveiling of the hair was seen as a shame, an act of rebellion or disassociation from a husband, or a sign of adultery or prostitution. In fact, someone suspected of or caught in adultery would have her veil removed.
Please do look into it. 😊
I love this so much. This was my exact experience coming to Christ 3 years ago!!
@@happyjoynesssReally? Praise Jesus! I’ve had so much joy over it that I long to share it with others. It’s so exciting to connect with others who have had the same experience! How have friends and family reacted to it?
I've been wanting to wear more long skirts as well, but was never convicted about head covering. I just don't fancy it up to show it off.
My family and in-laws thought I was crazy. Lol. They probably still do but they are used to it now. It’s a freedom in this where others would say it’s restricting. In a way minimalism is to most. What was your experience with family?
I believe she is teaching this correctly - and Tamar’s sign of the trade when she disguised herself as a prostitute was to cover her face in a veil: “When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, because she had covered her face with a veil” (excerpt from Genesis 38:15).
It is NOT obvious that women are to cover their heads with a veil. Paul was saying that women ought to cover their heads with long hair. The fact that it is written in verse 15 should make anyone take notice that long hair is the covering. You wont find anything else being mentioned unless you read some corrupt modern versions. See for yourself in the King James.
God in his infinite wisdom has selected perfect symbols to display this difference in the created order. Our God loves symbols: He gave us the spotless lamb, the unleavened bread, the water in baptism, the bread & wine, the olive tree, marriage, the temple, the feasts, and the list could go on and on.
Each symbol was chosen by God for a specific purpose to point to a greater reality.
The argument for the use of head coverings:
-
Reason 1 - Creation Order- When a woman prays with her head covered, she is using a symbol pointing to something greater. It is the symbol that points to the created order, this is not a cultural argument but a transcendent argument as God the Father’s headship is eternal and unchanging.
Reason 2 - Because of the Angles- Many people automatically assume that the practice of head covering was intended for only the Corinthian’s local culture and time period. But when Paul says that a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head “because of the angels,” he adds yet another solid indication that the practice is intended for the Church as a whole, irrespective of local culture or time period.
Reason 3- Nature - There are two things that nature teaches us: 1) That there are distinct differences between men and women 2) When a gender distinction is disregarded and crossed that dishonors a person. To illustrate his point Paul gave the example of our hair lengths. He said that women having long hair and men having short hair is one of those gender distinctions that is seen in nature and dishonorable if crossed (1 Cor 11:14-15). Now, a head covering in the context of the local church is a feminine symbol of being under male authority. Since the symbol is rooted in our gender distinctions nature teaches us that to cross this symbol would likewise be dishonorable (1 Cor 11:4-5). So while head coverings are taught explicitly by special revelation, it is confirmed by what nature silently teaches us as well.
Reason 4- Church Practice - Tertullian was a Christian apologist who lived from 160-220AD. Having observed the 3rd century Corinthian church firsthand, Tertullian in essence says “they understood that Paul meant all women must wear head coverings. That’s evidenced by the fact that to this day that is still their practice.”
This teaching remained the standard practice of most churches throughout most of the Church History. As R.C. Sproul notes “The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church of Jesus Christ which is “the pillar and ground of the truth”?
Head coverings are not some new strange doctrine. This is an old doctrine, based in the Bible and understood that way by the majority throughout the history of the church. Head coverings were practiced in all churches, and we are the exception today.
Amen sister!
Well said! It's a satanic inversion where the contentious ones have taken over. Keep standing in truth.
If head coverings is hair then men should be shaved bald while praying and prophesying, for Paul says every man doing so with his head covered (hair, according to your opinion) is dishonoring his head (Christ, according to Paul and the natural order of things).
This chapter is not about women looking like men at all. It’s about a spiritual state and order, and women acknowledging that order with an outward symbol, “while praying and prophesying”…because of the angels, says Paul.
But still, in our day, women feel weird about it, me included at times, because many of us wear the pants, literally and figuratively, and we’ve been raised in the era of women’s lib. We see the whole thing as oppressive and in many circles and cultures it has been abused.
But facts are facts. Paul appeals to a spiritual order that isn’t specific to the Corinthians. Furthermore, Paul says if anyone wants to be contentious about it, that they have no other custom and neither do the (other) churches of God.
Paul is using hair as a “type” of covering to illustrate that if a woman prays or prophesies without a covering that she may as well be bald. He also illustrates that hair is a glory for woman (we all agree), and woman is man’s glory. Carry that thought forward that man’s glory ought to be covered when approaching the throne and we’re in the presence of angels, otherwise we’re dishonoring our head (man, according to the order Paul illustrates).
We are reading into it something that just isn’t there when we reduce it to hair vs short or no hair (on a woman, specifically), and we miss out on a much greater spiritual truth and opportunity. It also completely ignores what Paul says about men covering vs not covering.
Remember, this is an outward symbol of an inward position and acknowledgment, and it only applies when praying and prophesying.
Amen sister!
Everyone gets stuck on the women's veil and totally miss that men should take hats and turbans off to pray. Socially women have stopped covering the men's socially are still asked to take their hats off at the ball game during the anthem take their hats off at the table so you can pray before dinner their ask to take their hats off in church all of these instances where it's shown take off their hats in certain situations and we forget the women are supposed to be covered in the exact same situation
Amen
Like many issues, it has to do with the state of our heart. We have to look inward as women and ask if we are seeking attention with our appearance and if we are we need to humble ourselves. I also think we need to be respectful of other women’s husbands and that God made men to look at women. We should not be seeking attention from other men.
Amen and amen!
If 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.
yay!!! Prayer Time at 11 am EST that's great, can't wait 💌
That topic is not a matter of discussion. It is written:15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16 But if any man seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. 1Corintians 11-15,16
Amen Sonya, praise God that there are still some who recognize this simple fact that long hair IS the covering. God bless
I'm not here to argue about this topic. I just thought I'd mention that in my studying on the topic I came to see that when they translated the bible they used the english words "covering and covered" thruoughout this passage, but when you study the Hebrew Greek study bible one covering literally means a cloth and one covering means your hair.
I encourage each of you to study it yourself with a Hebrew Greek study bible and look up every single word (covering or covered) and see what the Hebrew Greek meaning is for it, and pray about it before you write it off as not for today.
God bless. ❤️
With all due respect but I also have made a deep study and the word covered does not mean a cloth. It just means like it sounds "covered" and is more like an adverb than a noun. "Cloth" has a different word in Greek, read when Jesus was wrapped in a linen cloth (Matt 27) the word katakalupto which is written in 1 Cor 11 is NOT there. Therefore your conclusion is mistaken. Here is an excerpt from who made decent work on this subject.
“Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto (hanging-down, covered) to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around” (perbolaiou). In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the examples first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai.’ - Bernie Parsons
Well said. Thanks for sharing.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter A very good counter argument I hope more people see this truth.
Thank you so much for that clarity, I needed that 🥰
Headcovering is transcultural and still applies for today. Paul cited, headship order, the angels, and nature's witness as reasons women ought to headcover. Those three reasons are not cultural. Paul uses two different words to differentiate from natural hair covering and cloth covering. Woman understood the scriptural command and covered through the 1960s until the Second Vatican Counsel and the women's liberation movement happened. Women burned their headcoverings and veils. Society rages against the order God laid out, and headcovering during corporate worship and prayer is still relevant today. It never wasn't relevant because it transcends culture.
Well said!!! ❤
Amen!
The passage in I Cor 11 addresses men's headcovering as well - saying that men must remove it from their heads during the public worship service. So if hair is seen as headcovering as you say does that mean that men must be shaven bald before they could enter the public worship service?
I have noticed that most head covering promoters misinterpret the beliefs of those who believe that long hair is the covering. In their efforts to show that it doesn’t make sense they will state something like:
“If hair were the covering, then men should be shaved bald (aka uncovered) every time they pray.”
You’d be surprised at how many times I’ve read this in the comments section of various TH-cam videos.
There are several errors here, the first being that no one is saying that to be uncovered means to be shaved. If a woman is to be covered in long hair and a man is NOT to be covered in long hair, then we are not talking about baldness or being shaved it just means that a man should not have long hair or another way to say the same thing is that he should have SHORT hair. So that is mistake number one.
Mistake number two is that what Paul was preaching had to do with some action that requires something to be taken off (or put on). Although it is true that Paul was saying that men ought to be uncovered when praying or prophesying but he wasn’t being exclusive he was just giving a couple of examples. The idea is that a believing man should not have long hair (meaning he should be uncovered) while doing anything holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying.
What? Do you think Paul saying it was ok to be “covered” while preaching, talking in tongues, interpreting tongues, casting out devils, singing to the Lord, worshipping to the Lord, dancing to the Lord, etc. as long as it was not those two exclusive moments?
Evidence that he must have been referring to hair is also based on his mentioning of the order of creation between men and women in verses 8 and 9. If Paul is making the effort to include this as a reason why women should be covered, and men uncovered then it must be BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats. It also must be BEFORE any idea of church. Therefore, what else could Paul be talking about if not hair way back in the beginning? It had to have been something that existed since then and had to have been natural like hair.
I would rather wear a head covering in church.
Hi Heidi! What about those who do not have "long hair" to cover? Not because of intentional cuttings/shaving/trimming of the hair but because of nature/genetics? For example there are plenty of women who have hair textures that are more curly in nature and it appears significantly shorter than the average woman. Also women who have conditions that cause them to no longer have/grow hair...in these cases, does the same interpretation of hair being the covering apply? This may cause them to unintentionally look less feminine if we are using hair as the determination/measuring stick for feminine appearance. Are you saying that this really boils down to heart issues and as long as we are not intentionally trying to look less feminine- then there is no need to cover? I new to the concept/debate of hair coverings in general so my questions may be off base/already addressed. Just looking for clarification. Thank you so much for all that you share and do to help us grow in our biblical literacy.
The topic of what we wear is in this realm-- do we ALWAYS have to wear dresses? Can we wear pants? Etc... And the point of all of this in regards to our outward appearance is... Is it drawing attention to our flesh in some way, are we using it to make ourselves "superior" to those around us (IE: they see us and are drawn to what we're showing externally vs our internal good), and do we as women look feminine and the men look masculine- for our culture- to show our trusting in God's created order. Hope that helps! XO
What is inside shows outside
Did the video creator actually answer your question?
If Paul was talking about hair being our covering, the text would not make sense. For example, vs "But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved." Phrase replacement will tell you a lot. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her hair cut short (aka not long hair) dishonors her head, since that is one and the same as having her head shaved. or v 6 "So if a woman’s head is not covered, her hair should be cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should be covered." Phrase replacement So if a woman’s head is cut short (aka not long), her hair should be cut off. But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should be covered.... Do you see it doesn't make sense? You mentioned 1 Timothy 2. Paul specified that women should be covered in prayer and prophecy. He did not say that women should be covered at all times. So, of course, hair styles would be visible outside of church or during work or any activity that wasn't prayer and prophecy. Also note, that women of the day, wore Pallas. Both Pallas and togas had an extra piece of cloth that hung down from the shoulder (much like Indian Saris). Historical information shows us that the piece of cloth would be pulled up over the head. It would often cover the back of the head, not necessarily the front where the hair style would still be visible. Paul also did not give any cultural reasons for the practice of women covering and men uncovering. He based his arguments in nature and creation order and because of the angels. These reasons completely and utterly transcend culture. He also was commending them for following this instruction like all the other churches. v 16. It was not something only practiced in Corinth. This is further confirmed by the early church fathers talking about head covering as a practice all churches observed. I believe you are a complementarian in which case you should note that some of the same reasons we are given for head covering are the same as for submission in other verses. Paul also is PRAISING the Corinthians for following the instruction. He wasn't correcting the church for not observing it nor was he correcting women for rebelling against femininity. We need to be very careful about adding culture and reasons for something the apostles write. In this case, he gave the reasons for his instruction. Lesbos wasn't one of them. Isn't it curious that, if that was the reason, he didn't mention it? Nature is what tells us short hair on a woman is shameful-not because of women wanting to be men in a neighboring island. Not covering was just as shameful as being shaved. If a woman wouldn't wear a covering, then she may as well just shave or chop off her hair. That is what Paul was saying. I urge you to study this further. Note that NOW specially attacked women covering their heads during the Easter Bonnet rebellion because of what it stood for. Since then, the church has shied away from the issue and have found false reason after false reason for not practicing it. But, the plain reading of the text, in context, does tell us that it is something we should all be obeying as the reasons are transcultural and timeless.
Misconceptions of Long Hair being the Covering.
I have noticed that most head covering promoters misinterpret the beliefs of those who believe that long hair is the covering. In their efforts to show that it doesn’t make sense they will state something like:
“If a woman doesn’t have long hair let her cut her hair? That just doesn’t make sense.”
In other words, they are under the impression that one is confused when explaining verse 6 because why would it ask to cut the woman’s hair if it was supposedly already cut? Therefore, this explanation does not make sense as it seems to be repetitive, but this is not being understood correctly. But "not being covered" (aka uncovered) means having short hair but that does not mean that it cannot be cut shorter or shaved off. I have short hair, but neither is it a buzz cut or shaved off bald.
Therefore, even though I have short hair it doesn’t mean that it cannot be cut even shorter or shaved bald.
So now it is important to understand what shorn and shaven mean. The word “shorn” is the same word used when you shear sheep. A stubble is left behind. And shaven implies using a razor which implies that all the hair would be taken off. Note that the word “shorn” is repeated alongside the word “shaven” in the KJV as if to confirm and clarify that they are referring to something that causes shame.
Obviously cutting off an inch of hair is not going to cause shame therefore the meaning implies something extreme. And since both words imply seeing the scalp we must be referring to baldness. A quick look at any dictionary will show that these words are synonymous. Therefore, by mentioning these words side by side Paul would seem to be emphasizing the fact that women with short hair may as well be made bald or almost bald.
Yet some will refuse to see the obvious logic here and still claim that it doesn’t mean baldness but just that it is cut, as if to say to cut off a bit from the top when one goes to the barber. But what they don’t do is the due diligence that the SAME word “shorn” is used when Paul makes a vow and cuts off his hair. I don’t think when normal people read this that they assume that Paul took an inch off his hair right? No, it was common back then that when someone was serious about a vow they would do a serious act like cutting ALL their hair off. There is nowhere to run away from this, shorn just like shaven has to do with baldness.
It would also be very difficult to claim that Paul was speaking metaphorically as hair seems to be the main theme here and the removal thereof repeatedly. Why would he repeat the words shaved or shorn unless he was being literal? I think most of us can agree that having short hair (like in a typical male haircut) is NOT the same as having their hair shorn or shaven aka bald. Therefore, a woman being “uncovered” simply means that she has short hair and that in doing so she might as well shave the REST of her hair off. It’s not that complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
Unfortunately, people tend to get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seem like some kind of headwear but do not consider all the verses that show that “covering” means long hair and that “uncovered” means short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can we conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet, or veil?
I reiterate, how can one have logical judgments in the example I gave that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil one would automatically assume that there is a foreign object missing? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, I implore everyone to set aside any bias and explain to themselves 1st Corinthians 11:13 thoroughly, but I suspect most people will simply ignore it. This, therefore, makes the whole veil interpretation wrong, that it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 7…
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue.
Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix.
“For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold.
This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Great comment dude!!! Kudos!
Amen. 😊
That second scripture(Timothy) they were having elaborate hairstyles. They could have still had it peaking from under a head covering. The women about her would have been focused on seeing her hair peaking out vs. coming together FOCUSED on worshipping Messiah.
Having it peaking from under a head covering is a guess. Clearly there was no mention of some kind of covering therefore one can only conclude that believing women must have been walking around without any manmade covering. Plus there is no strong evidence women had to worship God with something on their heads
Very good explanation sister!
The video I’ve been waiting for!!!!!❤
You can do your hair in fancy ways and wear a head covering AT THE SAME TIME.
To which maybe the church that Timothy pastored the women were wearing head coverings but just had too fancy of hair dos to show off.
So Paul didnt need to be address the women to have their head covered but it was written to address their heart of showing off.
I am very interested in joining but I am not understanding how it works. Is there a website or is everything on youtube. I apologize if the question sounds dumb but I have never joined anything on youtube, but you have helped me so much more than you will ever know with my new found walk with Christ and I very much want to dig deeper and absolutely love your teaching.
Both! It's all hosted on TH-cam, but we have created extra websites to organize it all and pull all the resources together for you all! :) XO
In the Greek language of the Bible the word for "covering" in verse 15 is not the same thing as the word "cover" in the previous verses. The way it is translated in English makes the entire passage seem very self-refuting because Paul makes it clear that a woman is to have her head covered, only to then (seemingly) say that her hair actually works to do the job (after saying her hair should be shaved off if her head is not covered.) So Paul would basically be refuting himself after giving a reason based on Gods' design for a woman wearing a head covering. Thankfully the Greek clears this up, and the word for "covering" in verse 15 is entirely different and I believe it is a word that is better translated as "decoration" or something similar. This would further emphasize what Paul is already saying instead of refuting himself. I would encourage anyone to look into it yourself. His statement about the other churches following the same practice doesn't sound at all like he's just talking about a problem in the church at Corinth either. If he were to be addressing a problem specific to Corinth then I don't believe he would say that about the other churches. Those are my thoughts. God bless.
Amen sister!
“Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around” (perbolaiou). In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the examples first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai.’ - Bernie Parsons
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Thank you for taking the time to reply to my comment. I have taken some time to consider what you have written and would like to give a response to it. You are correct about the word katakalupto being an adverb. I, too, believe that it is a reference to a state of being. Although I believe your view is logical and well thought out, there are a few things about it that I believe are not consistent with the text. The first is that you apply the word katakalupto to the hair of a woman, but the text applies it to the head. That ever so slight departure from the structure of the sentence leaves open the possibility to hold an interpretation consistent with yours, and your logic is quite consistent. The problem is that it is just not what is written in the Bible. The actual words do not align with the argument that is being used. My position uses the actual words of the Bible on the matter, but yours does not. We must use the actual words. Second, if a woman has her "head" uncovered, it makes sense that her head be shaved for not covering it. I can't see why Paul would say a woman's head should be shaved for not having it further showing. Paul goes on to say that it should be done because of the "angels." The word for angels is the same as messengers. I believe the messengers would have been the males who were teaching. Paul wanted the women's heads covered in the presence of males. Third, Paul's logic about a woman having authority "on" her head and a man's head not being covered because he is the "imagine and glory of God" don't seem to mesh with your position. I appreciate your response to my previous comment, and I respect your position. I honestly had never heard that position before and I believe I could accurately represent the position now if someone were to ask me about it.
@@hooch175 Hi, thanks for your reply as well. Just to clarify the comment I made is a quote from someone who studied this topic which I agree to a certain extent. Ok so it seems like you are saying that because the word katakalupto text applies to the head therefore it should not apply to the hair. I would say it would be somewhat odd to separate it altogether given that hair and head are normally attached together (no pun intended). If we were to just go with the basic root understanding of the passage it should be understood as something that covers and that it should cover the head whether it be hair or in your case a veil or hat. This also should lead you to ask why Paul didn’t use a word to clarify that he meant a hat or veil, etc. Some Christians today have been seeking an answer to this question for a long time, along with the dimensions, color or type of fabric. Some have tried to, unsuccessfully in my opinion, show it was a cloth but of course the word cloth as used in Jesus’s burial clothes are not used in this passage. If we are to truly use the actual words of the Bible then we shouldn’t add or assume things if it isn’t there unless it is explained further on. For example it should be evident that hair, in general, is mentioned quite a few times which should not be dismissed. In the KJ Bible the words long hair, shorn and shaven are all written twice. Clearly hair was a major issue in the passage,
You also mentioned that if a woman has her "head" uncovered, it makes sense that her head be shaved for not covering it. I can't see why Paul would say a woman's head should be shaved for not having it further showing.
First of all one should note that a woman’s long hair is her covering according to verse 15. If the “covering” is long hair then to be “uncovered” means to have short hair. Remember that a man’s head should be uncovered, to it is obvious that Paul is not saying a man’s head should be shaved bald, so let’s put aside this odd idea for a moment as some people like to associate. Logic dictates that if a woman’s head ought to be covered and say that it is to mean covered in LONG hair, then to be uncovered means the opposite, to not be covered in long hair. This implies that the person would have SHORT hair. With this premise we can see that Paul was saying that if a woman who has short hair (uncovered head) would be under the result action of having her head shaved. This logic lines up with the previous verse that stated that an uncovered head is likened to a shaved head. A short haired woman can easily be likened unto a shaved head. But the “veil theory” alternative would be a very illogical and strange in my opinion, in that a woman (who typically would have long hair) simply because she doesn’t have a hat or veil on would be likened to a shaved head? That does not make sense to say that a woman without a veil or hat even with long flowing hair is equated to being shaved.
As for the "angels" there are many theories out there for this brief mentioning of this word that seems to come out of nowhere to be accurate. So you may be partly right and I may be partly right. But what we can understand is that it was a reason for the woman to cover her head (in long hair). And since as you stated we should use “the actual words of the Bible” therefore there is no scriptural reason to assume the angels being referred to were males. It just says angels and we should just leave it at that.
You also mentioned that Paul's logic about a woman having authority "on" her head and a man's head not being covered because he is the "imagine and glory of God" don't seem to mesh with your position.
Well in the KJV it says power not authority and that is another of those things that scholars are not sure what to make of it. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
The only thing we can say for sure is that this verse as well as the verse you mentioned regarding men being the "imagine and glory of God" are reason why they should cover or not cover. So it really doesn’t change anything.
Lastly here is an excerpt from my 40-page thesis on this subject that tends to help some reevaluate this issue. Keep in mind it is a copy and paste and is not being directed personally.
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"
Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be “uncovered” should mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL should pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Why should the lack of a veil make a praying woman not have a “pleasing appearance” (aka look comely)? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is important so please don’t dismiss it.
Be honest with yourself do YOU really believe that the average person will look at an unveiled, praying woman and naturally think a VEIL is missing or would make her look unpleasing? Are we to assume that Paul expected the average person to have instilled within them the idea that a foreign object is missing from a woman? I have never seen or heard anyone say something like: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head?” after looking at a long-haired, praying woman. To so do would be ludicrous. One would have to be totally biased to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right that there is an unpleasing appearance. I think I can say with some assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a short-haired woman from behind especially if we are not sure if the person was male or female. It seems like a natural reaction especially when we were young.
Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation.
"Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14
Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong: whether it be OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (a.k.a. short hair) while praying or OBSERVING a man having long hair.
In addition, by using the word “NATURE” one can’t even use the excuse that perhaps they were expecting only Christians to see something different. Clearly, if “nature” teaches us that something looks off then it must include all of mankind as nature teaches all of us both Christian and non-Christian.
I would like to also add that these verses are NOT jumping from the discussion of a “veil” in verse 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in verse 14 like some would like to argue because you will note that verse 15 refers again to the woman which FLAT-OUT STATES the “covering” is to mean “long hair.” Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses are referring to hair length. By this, we can understand verse 4 which states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered as I previously mentioned.
I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due to the false interpretation that the verse is exclusive to two conditions instead of seeing them as two examples. As mentioned before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR.”
Again, thanks for your reply. I always appreciate a good discussion. God bless.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Thanks for your response. You've certainly given me a lot to think about, and I hope I've done the same for you. I appreciate you taking the time to articulate your thoughts for me. I hope our short conversation has been as beneficial for you as it has for me. I also hope it sets a good example for others in discussing different views without taking offense. God bless you too, and I hope you and yours have a merry Christmas! -Ed (I know that someone commented "Amen sister!" to me earlier, but I'm actually a mister 😁. I recently purchased a new cell phone and for some reason it has me signed in on my wife's account.)
In Corinthians, the context is during prayer or prophesying like in a church service or prayer meeting in modern times. I think it wasn’t mentioned in Timothy because it only matters to wear a head covering during a worship service. I don’t have any friends who wear head coverings or see anyone at church ever wearing one. I wear a wide cloth headband and I haven’t talked to anyone about it. I don’t think it’s something to argue over, but the heart of it is good to teach about….submission and reverence. Two things greatly lacking in the church.
Wow thank you for the context I never heard about this before. I know women today do head covering always wondered is that required or is it her hair.❤️🙌🏼🙏🏼
The covering is twofold in the passage. The artificial covering which represents the authority is one. The woman's hair is the natural one.
When God's glory is on display through the man, the woman covers her glory with the symbol.
It's a disgrace to creation and Christ to do otherwise as Paul states.
Being a disgrace in prayer and prophecy is not wise before a holy God.
Luke 10:16
Do you have any thoughts on the Sabbath the 7th day thanks and God bless
❤ great video ! Thank you ☺️
You are so welcome! XO
Amen, Sister!
Thank you so much ❤
Love this teaching
It's false
Amen!
Thank you for speaking on this. There is so much adding onto these verses in certain circles. If he were discussing a fabricated veil, I think it would have been apparent at that time. Why even go into discussion about hair, you know? You explained really well! 😊
And I could very well be wrong, but at this time that is where I also stand. I've gone through seasons of wearing a headcovering and it was during a time where I was engulfed in legalism in many areas. Not saying this is the case for anyone else, but that was where my heart was at the time when I was first introduced to the idea of physical coverings (that weren't hair.)
@@herhomemakingheart If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
Quran - Doesn't say anything about head coverings, yet most Muslim women wear head-covering.
Bible - Clearly says that women should wear head-coverings, yet most Christian women are even worse, not only do they not cover their hair, but they dress tight clothing and expose their bodies.
Very ironic if you tell me.
I’d like to know where you got your information regarding the culture of the Corinthian church? With the women rebelling, I have studied this topic very deeply and I’d like to see a reference for this information, as, with respect,I believe it is wrong. I would also wonder why Christian women wore head coverings up until around the 1940’s, then they were gradually phased out with the feminism movement and almost gone by the 1960’s. If the church believed this was a biblical practice up until the 20th century, why do we suddenly think all of church history was wrong about this? I would lovingly encourage you to study this further.
I agree that the host is misinformed about the idea of culture. Paul was clearly showing that what he was preaching was for everyone at anytime.
* Going Outside the Scope of the Scriptures & the so-called “Christian History” ….
Proponents of the head covering often point towards church history meaning that there is “historical evidence” within the church (whatever church that may be) that this doctrine was applied for a very long time. Many proponents insist that women had been wearing a head covering for centuries and that only recently (within the 1900s) did women begin to reject the idea, usually because of an introduction of some evil like the feminist movement as though this somehow supports or gives credence to their false interpretation.
They never consider the fact that about that time more people were getting the word of God into their hands and as a result the possibility that they discovered that the old interpretations, held by many of these contradicting churches, were false. As an example, I recall when I was Catholic, I was shocked when I found the Bible to be contrary to Catholic dogmas. And they claim to have had the true word of God for centuries! It is logical to think that as more people read the Scriptures with their own eyes, they would naturally discover many false doctrines pushed by many sects and even within their own church. So, one cannot just assume that one specific movement or event caused many to reject this or any other doctrine.
Still, many veil promoters will be bold to claim that no Christian or Christian group ever thought that the covering was long hair and not a veil. That such an idea only existed within the last few years. This seems to be a very narrow-minded way to think that no one ever thought that long hair was the covering for over two thousand years. Yet they will declare it as though it were a proven fact but when confronted no one that I have spoken to has been able to logically describe HOW they came to this conclusion with proof. Most people tend to make outlandish claims but never do research to prove these claims.
Another argument is the fact that certain women wore veils, bonnets, or hats in the past is by no means evidence of any kind. One cannot prove that women (in general, not just Christians) who covered their heads in the past did it because they were supposedly following a “Christian” rule. If one must resort to going outside the scope of the scriptures to prove their point, then isn’t it possible that their biblical evidence was likely very thin, to begin with? They often add that many ancient pictures or paintings, whether they be religious or not, show women wearing some kind of physical head covering. But what people did in the past is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches; plus, people wore headwear for all sorts of reasons, and it doesn’t mean that they were abiding by what they interpret the Scripture to mean. The idea (if it can be proven) that more women wore fewer hats or veils today than in the past is not a sign of anything, whether they be Christian or not. It doesn’t prove people were breaking any so-called “biblical” rule if you first don’t prove that there was a rule to break to begin with!
Let me give you a couple of examples that eliminate this logic: The fact that people believed in using CRUCIFIXES, STATUES, RELIGIOUS PAINTINGS, or performed INFANT BAPTISMS or any other “religious” work for CENTURIES does not mean that we ought to accept them. The long time practice of a questionable doctrine is NOT evidence. It should go without saying that these examples are either not in the Bible or in contrast with scripture. False doctrines have been around for centuries; therefore, how can anyone use paintings, photos, or even post-biblical writings to prove their interpretation of Scripture to be correct? All it shows (like crucifixes, statues, and infant baptisms) is that people can be wrong for a very long period. The Bible even mentions the long time practice of temple construction but even though God allowed it ti happen he was NOT in agreement with it as one can easily see God’s disdain of the practice. (Read Acts 7:47-51). The New Testament already mentions several instances where people were misinterpreting the Scriptures and teaching false doctrines. So let’s not act like it would be hard to believe that splinter groups formed and followed their OWN interpretations of which could have spread to other denominations.
Even with biblical facts people will continue to find it hard to believe that the people could be wrong for so long. The thing that I find most interesting is when they throw around the word “church” as if one should KNOW what they mean. The first logical response should be ‘Which church are you referring to? Catholic? Protestant? Anabaptist?’ All of which oppose each other by the way. Who exactly is being referring to when they say “church?” Most of the time people are sidelined by this because they haven’t made any real effort to know what they mean by “church.” And if they start to add certain churches that contradict scripture. I would say, ‘Why are putting your trust in them?’ Then I would explain all the scriptural reasons why they shouldn’t.
Churches that follow a certain doctrine for an extended length of time are not proof of anything unless it stands firm within the scriptures. Our faith should be based on rock-solid verses, not because some churches are following similar beliefs which can be wrong, or the flimsy writings or etchings of man. Therefore, what the people did, however long ago, does not prove that what they practiced was biblically sound.
Amen
This is a little confusing because if Paul wrote “head covering” instead of “hair”, but later wrote to Timothy saying “hair”, then doesn’t he mean two different things? Also, he said a woman dishonors her head if she prays or prophesies without a head covering, for this is the SAME AS shaving her head. He’s comparing two different things? I don’t know, it sounds very clear to me that us women need to cover our heads when praying and prophesying. I don’t want to come off as rude, I’m just confused because I see more women not wear them than women who do. God bless! ❤️
Actually Paul did not actually write the word head covering. If one were to look at the “modern” bible versions one will find a words that never should have been translated that way. I am sure that there are a couple of version that will outright use the word veil but if we were to stick to a more reliable source like the King James Version we will not find the words “head covering” written in this way. We all know that if one were to phrase it in this way one can assume a hat or veil anything that is foreign to the body. But in the KJV it says either uncovered or not covered. In which case “hair” Hanging S the capacity to “cover” the head.
But I can understand that there would be a confusion when it says a woman dishonors her head if she prays or prophesies uncovered, for this is the SAME AS shaving her head. But Paul was not giving us two conditions but giving us two examples. Paul wants women to cover their heads in long hair ESPECIALLY if they are doing anything holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying but not exclusively. What? Are you then saying that Paul was saying that if the woman was casting out demons, or singing unto God, or talking in tongues or interpreting tongues that this is acceptable when to NOT wear a veil SINCE it isn’t EXCLUSIVELY praying or prophesying?
Also, why would not wearing a hat or veil be the same as if she shaved her head? That seems very illogical. But what if Paul was saying that a woman who is uncovered means a woman NOT covered in LONG hair meaning that she has SHORT hair? Which makes sense when referring that men’s heads should not be covered (in long hair because it is to be short). So now an covered head (meaning short hair) is UNDERSTANDABLY someone who looks like her head is shaved. That makes more logic than the lack of a hat equates to one being shaved.
Don't be confused. You're 100% correct and in line with scripture. Be blessed😊
The misconception is that Paul never really said head covering like if it were a noun instead he uses it as a verb. The words "to cover" (aka katakalupto) is correctly used in the passage when it says that a woman ought to cover the head (in the same logic if we were to say cover the feet or cover the hands) and “peribolaiou”, which means wrap around. Since the first word isn't a noun we should not assume anything here or jump to conclusions. But unfortunately for some reason I have been literally told (believe it or not) that it is a fabric or cloth despite the fact that it isn't a noun and that such words are not there to come to that definition. The next question should be can both words apply to hair? Yes if it is long. Long hair has the capacity to cover the head and wrap around. Now of course this is also true for a veil, but we would need strong evidence that Paul was referring to a veil or some kind of headwear. Another question to ask is if there is a theme here. For example hair is written 3 times and shorn and shaven 4 times (KJV) which are evidently associated with the cutting or shaving of hair. I think we can agree that we are not inferring something else that can be cut or shaved here. So for a total of 7 instances we should at least consider the possibility that Paul is talking more about hair than a veil.
What translation did she use to read the scriptures?
This is different than what have always thought. I was taught having long hair not the covering itself is what was important. Because of the woman who washed Jesus’s feet with her hair.
I think scripture is really left to a lot of interpretation based on individual beliefs as a whole.
Actually you are right long hair is the covering if one reads 1st Cor 11:15. You are also right that the woman who washed/dried Jesus' feet used her hair so there could not have been some command or rule about keeping a woman's hair under wraps so to speak. The problem people have is misinterpreting the word cover, Paul does not use the words cloth or veil it just says a woman ought to cover her head and if we read the CONTEXT you would note that Paul references hair 6 times. (Long hair 2x shorn 2x and shaven 2x). If context means anything anymore Paul had to have been saying that a woman ought to cover her head with long hair. And if this is confirmed with verse 15 then to be uncovered as in the case for men it means NOT to be covered in long hair or another way to say this is to have short hair NOT bald mind you just short.
1st Corinthians 11 says a woman's hair is her glory. This doesn't contradict the woman washing Christ's feet with her hair. For her to take what is glorious, and use it in such a lowly manner is the exact opposite of the long hair ilk that do just the opposite in the presence of God. So unless we're washing someone's dirty feet with our glory, it's probably best to cover that glory when the glory of God is on display.
.... and who's to say she was totally unveiled while washing his feet?
Either way, Paul speaks of two coverings in the passage, and hair is the natural covering, not the only covering.
Have an awesome day😊
I reread the passage and it does not mention cloth or veil covering at all. Only for women’s heads not to be shaven. I don’t have anything against women covering their hair, but this is just another example of difference of interpretation, beliefs and eventually religion.
@@ladybugmom10 The Greek has two different terms that are used to speak of the two coverings which Paul is talking about. I'd encourage you to study that when time permits.
Also, this doesn't come down to personal interpretation at all. In fact, in 1st Corinthians 11:16, Paul says this practice is established in ALL the churches of God everywhere, not just Corinth. The contentious ones were not obeying the decree.
@@marriage4life893 nope the passage is referring to the head not the hair. Yes in fact both Greek and Hebrew definitions of cover in to be hidden. But the passage is talking about a women’s head. So to cover the head is to use the hair. Again interpretation. I mean no disrespect to anyone who believes otherwise. But I stand by my own statement. Have a lovely sabbath
I grew up in a church that wore hats but what i saw as a child was that there was a compensation on who had the biggest and nicest hat.
Never wore a hat sunce leaving that church and being in another one
I think this has become a huge piece in it all, unfortunately.
Interesting thoughts. You can cover your head while also styling the length of your hair in a high maintenance way ... or in a simple Christian way. The issue is to cover the head, not the full length of hair necessarily. The Apostle was clear to state it's a head covering and not a hair covering like in other religions. So what you speak about in Timothy about women to not wear braids doesn't change the meaning of covering the head.
1 Corinthians 11:5 DRC1752
[5] But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.
If she has to put something on while worshipping, then we are talking about fabric and not growing hair to long lengths because you don't put on and take off the hair you grow.
1 Corinthians 11:14-15 DRC1752
[14] Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? [15] But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
Here the Apostle is making a point that even nature is showing us that a woman should cover her head because a woman likes to grow her hair long but it's disgraceful for a man to spend that much time to retain hair length.
He's making a point that even the natural inclination of a woman is not to want to be bald and it's a natural covering. It doesn't mean that's all a woman has to do or else this letter would have been about hair lengths and not head covering.
It would have been enough to say women should keep long hair lengths. But the Apostle went to great lengths to talk about covering the head.
Covering the head is our way to be set apart which is a requirement. Jesus Christ is no respecter of persons and cultures. He didn't say, "if you live in Western countries, uncover your head and if you live in the East cover your heads - each one follow culture." We are to set ourselves apart from this world.
It's all about respecting the authority heirarchy and covering our heads specifically - not the hair beyond the head space necessarily.
On a side note, Christian women are required to be Christian even if they face persecution. If a woman follows her husband against God’s Way, it doesn't suddenly give her a free excuse. If we are not wanting to wear it cuz we are too ashamed to look Christian, Jesus Christ might not really want to mention us to Abba Father.. His words not mine.
With love ❤
Amen and well said.
I do think some women suddenly want to lean on their husband's authority when it's convenient for them. However, in the passage, Paul isn't looking to the husband's approval of the practice but to God through Christ. Those husbands will bear the responsibility for leading their wives astray from obedience to something Paul said was practiced in all churches everywhere. This is what it looks like when the contentious ones take over. They'll correlate so much of church decay and attack on traditional roles to women's liberation, but when it comes to the practice of covering, they sound just like the world. Isn't it crazy how they mostly claim its cultural when they're the ones being cultural today? Well, it is cultural.... it's church culture, and it's still a torn in the sides of the worldly.
They look to their husbands for authority to discard the ordinance that points to his authority in Christ.
Make that make sense.
Could you let me know what version of the Bible you are reading from?
It was my NLT!
I am thinking about some things and have a few questions. What about the Nazarite vow when men let their hair grow out? Samson for example? John the Baptist did this. I believe Paul/Saul took this vow as well. In Acts 18:18 it says he cut/shaved his head because he took a vow. Some men like Samson and John the Baptist were Nazarites for life. Others took the vow for certain periods. It appears it was culturally acceptable in some circumstances for men to have long hair.
Then I was thinking about Deuteronomy how when a man wanted to take a woman as his wife whom the Israelites had captured from war he first had to shave her head. Also, the cleansing of a leper's body was to shave the hair. Both a man and a woman. So it seems that in their culture, it was done as part of purification/cleansing. It doesn't seem normal for a woman to have a shaved head except in those time frames. I understand Paul was bringing Gentiles into the family and there was a learning curve. Who knows what types of former practices they were a part of?
To all, I recommend Cynthia Westfall's hermeneutical study of these passages in the book Paul and Gender. Being the "head of" is more likely to mean source, like headwaters, and yes woman was taken from man as Paul clearly states, and this was contrary to the godless myths and false teachings that Paul was countering in these passages. This is Pauline theology underscoring why Christ was the only one that could save mankind. Adam sinned knowingly and, as Eve's source, all of humanity fell when he sinned. Fun fact, the term "a symbol of" is not in the Greek (why was this not addressed in the video?), and that passage can be read a woman has authority over her literal head (the Greek is epi). This is why Paul stated nevertheless woman is not independent of man nor man independent of woman, which clearly shows he had affirmed woman's authority for self-modesty because he put in this qualifier. Veiling was a sign of modesty and sexual unavailability in a world where high class men could pretty much have their way with low class people, and it is more rational to believe that the church was struggling with class division and the objection to women veiling who were lower class but wanted to be modest, versus the demand that unveiled women veil. Doesn't logic and knowledge of human behavior to protect one's own place in society make this highly plausible? This is akin to Peter's letter that mentions women not making their beauty about ornate hairdos and costly jewelry. Additionally, there is no evidence that veiling is required for angels to understand order. Rather, it is more plausible that it refers back to one of Paul's preceding statements in 1 Corinthians 6:3 in which he mentions that believers will one day judge the angels and therefore are able to decide trivial matters now, including spirit-filled women This passage supports that female believers are able to decide matters of modesty so that they do not bring shame to themselves, to their husbands/fathers, or to God the Father. The application today is modesty and not calling attention to oneself in worship. The odd woman veiling or wearing a hat would have the opposite affect and call attention in today's culture. Having said all this, I know some will disagree because the hierarchical view has been so ingrained (and indeed Jesus warned about believers lording over others as the gentiles do), but to you I simply say - let us be convinced in our own minds based on the study of scripture.
I also think that if a woman believes in wearing a head covering along with their hair, then being consistent in our beliefs is important. Having our heads covered during prayer would mean always being covered if we’re told to be in prayer continuously. Rom 12:12/1 Thess 5:16-18
Would they need to keep a head covering on at all times for anytime they needed to pray?
Exactly- that would be a big difference! SO then was Paul saying ONLY veil when *publically* praying? See... lots to get into here when I think the root is always the deeper meaning. XO
I would argue that yes you can keep a head covering with you for prayer. Mine are from Garlands of Grace and I twist them into my wrist and wear them or at my house I have them in 5 specific places so I always have one nearby. If I don't, I can wear my husband's ball cap that he is taking off for prayer or simply he puts his hand on my head.
Being told to pray continually is pointing to our heart. We all know we don't and actually can't be praying at all times. But our heart should be in the mindset to go to prayer as our first response always.
Being told to wear a covering while praying is actually easy. And perhaps it is supposed to be only in a corporate setting.
The question to ask is when/where do we cover. Not if we should cover.
I also take some issues with the idea of some that our “worship” is in a building on Sunday mornings or whenever we are with other Christians in the building. Worship is our daily life as believers. Therefore, if wearing a covering is required in the building or when we’re worshipping in a group, it’s required consistently in our lives. Romans 12:1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.
Need to do it, that is all! Why to fight with God? Respect God and your husband! You will see a huge blessing in it ❤
@@Biomazz5454 God is to be WORSHIPPED with love, not "respected"!.... (see Luke 4:8; 10:27) GOD is ABOVE all! :)
I would love a video on Christian giving please:)
thank you for this video. ❤ Do you have any tips on how to stay focused on God? ❤
Oooh- good topic! We'll work on that!
thank you ❤
I appreciate you sharing your view. One thing I’ve come to learn is that when I read the Bible I now understand not everything written to me or applies to me or is meant for me to do. This is why Bible study is so important.
Which part of 1st Corinthians 11:1-16 isn't for you or to you?
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
I agree with you
I’ve always had long hair. And when I did cut my hair short (in high school and late 20’s early 30’s) I felt weird.
Just a small thought to add as I have began looking into this: The letter to the corinthians opens by saying "To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ". So Paul knew this letter was to be circulated to many other churches (as his letters often were sent around to help teach other churches), and God knew that we would have this inspired word today. I find the argument that this letter only applies to the Corinthians, or that part of the letter, to be very weak.
Then you missed the point- of course these are to be read by the churches, but this was still a letter written to a specific people addressing responses to specific problems. We must keep scripture in light of its intent. As you would any other document you’d read. 😉
1st Corinthians is talking about long hair and the letter to Timothy is talking about putting jewels in your hair there are two separate issues. One has nothing to do with the other
This is something that perplexed me. There are many things that have been mistranslated into English. I don’t think the kjv is the only version to be examined. I think we should go to the original translations and try to understand in context from a Jewish Bible. The customary thing was for woman to cover their heads not just have long hair. Our culture is extremely western and modern compared to biblical ways.
Also perplexing is why women should cover their heads because of the angels that part is often overlooked and dismissed.
When I see a woman wearing a head covering I see modesty. I usually notice the woman is very humble and not at all prideful in her demeanor or loud and rebellious. I see different cultures and different branches of bible believers wearing different coverings and it all is out of obedience to their beliefs. I find it rather faithful and admirable. It’s very hard for American culture to understand it unless we open our minds and hearts to the possibility and why is it so difficult for anyone to comprehend that it is biblical and orderly to do, even if it’s inconvenient and hard to find a practical way to wear a covering in todays secular society.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
Thank you for discussing this! Head coverings is such an interesting topic because although I do not practice it, I deeply respect Amish and Mennonite women for upholding it.
On a side note, I know it’s not the norm for your channel but would you consider showing us what makeup products you use? It looks so natural yet enhances features, and I’m very curious.
I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day!
I get it!! But just let me ask you. When can we take the Bible at face value when the apostles , Jesus is talking to us directly and when is it for just that culture or time?
Oh we definitely can take and learn through all of scripture! We just need to remember that it’s not all written DIRECTLY to us- context is always key! 📖
2 Timothy 3:16-17
New International Version
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
@@Biomazz5454 If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
Luke 10:16
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
QUESTION:
If a woman already has "short" hair as a covering, how can it be shortrned if she wears not a covering, if her hais is the coverong?
ANSWER: There is a misunderstanding of the explanation of verse 6.
Some are under the impression that one is confused when explaining verse 6 because why would it ask to cut the woman’s hair if it was supposedly already cut? Therefore, this explanation does not make sense as it seems to be repetitive, but this is not being understood correctly. To NOT be covered (aka uncovered) means having short hair but that does not mean that it cannot be cut shorter or shaved off. I have short hair (meaning it is uncovered or not covered in long hair), but neither is it a buzz cut or shaved off bald. Therefore, even though I have short hair it doesn’t mean that it cannot be cut even shorter or shaved bald. So now it is important to understand what shorn and shaven mean. The word “shorn” is the same word used when you shear sheep. A stubble is left behind. And shaven implies using a razor which implies that all the hair would be taken off. Note that the word “shorn” is repeated alongside the word “shaven” in the KJV as if to confirm and clarify that they are referring to extremely short hair that implies seeing the scalp. A quick look at any dictionary will show that these words are synonymous of being bald. Therefore, by mentioning these words side by side Paul would seem to be emphasizing the fact that women with short hair may as well be made bald or almost bald. Therefore Paul is saying is that if a woman is not covered in LONG hair (meaning that her hair is short like a man) let her be shorn, but if it shameful to be shorn or shaven let her be covered in long hair (meaning let it grow out).
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Nice, it couldn't be clearer
WAIT till it GROWS BACK to LONG hair!... Duh!...
Where did you find "has SHORT hair as a COVERING", in the Bible?!?....
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Meaning.... the WOMAN has indeed F R E E D O M to either cut it short, shave it or wear (cover) herself with LONG HAIR, the glory of her head!
Therefore, it is okay for men to wear hats (head coverings) in church?
No men should take off hats.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
Question? Should a man take his hair off before praying or prophesying?
Misconceptions of the Covering.
I have noticed that most head covering promoters misinterpret the beliefs of those who believe that long hair is the covering. In their efforts to show that it doesn’t make sense they will state something like:
“If hair were the covering, then men should be shaved bald (aka uncovered) every time they pray.” or something similar like you said.
You’d be surprised at how many times I’ve read this in the comments section of various TH-cam videos.
There are several errors here, the first being that no one is saying that to be uncovered means to be shaved. If a woman is to be covered in long hair and a man is NOT to be covered in long hair, then we are not talking about baldness or being shaved it just means that a man should not have long hair or another way to say the same thing is that he should have SHORT hair. So that is mistake number one.
Mistake number two is that what Paul was preaching had to do with some action that requires something to be taken off (or put on). Although it is true that Paul was saying that men ought to be uncovered when praying or prophesying but he wasn’t being exclusive he was just giving a couple of examples. The idea is that a believing man should not have long hair (meaning he should be uncovered) while doing anything holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying.
What? Do you think Paul saying it was ok to be “covered” while preaching, talking in tongues, interpreting tongues, casting out devils, singing to the Lord, worshipping to the Lord, dancing to the Lord, etc. as long as it was not those two exclusive moments?
Evidence that he must have been referring to hair is also based on his mentioning of the order of creation between men and women in verses 8 and 9. If Paul is making the effort to include this as a reason why women should be covered, and men uncovered then it must be BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats. It also must be BEFORE any idea of church. Therefore, what else could Paul be talking about if not hair way back in the beginning? It had to have been something that existed since then and had to have been natural like hair.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter I guess those who are BRAINWASHED are also "shaved" since they cannot make any distinction anymore between any length of hair!. Their comments are pure nonsense!
That's a good question. Men always get lost in this topic though Paul addressed them first. It's really unfair. This isn't a women's issue, it's a church issue as Paul pointed out.
What do you think? Can a man wear a hat during prayer and prophecy?
It doesn’t make sense for Paul to write that a woman should cut her hair off, if she doesn’t want to wear a head covering, if he means the natural hair. That is not logical… why cut it off if he means they shouldn’t cut it off in the first place?
This is great point because if this is allegedly the case, then do those who claim that it is about head covering actually put this into practice? Have they cut women's hair off when they don't wear a head covering? And if not then why not? I can guess that some will make up excuses.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter haven’t met any who had head covering in church, so I can’t say. All I am trying to say is that the possibility with hair as head covering is not what the text says. There might be another cultural explanation that makes more sense.
@@user-rw6op8yb9g
...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her...
In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;...
-Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering.
-NASB
A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.
If a fabric covering is actually required,
then all references to hair are
totally irrelevant to the subject.
It only can make sense if the
long hair of a woman is the 'covering'.
She should be covered, with her long hair.
To have short hair, like a man, means that
she is basically bald. Therefore uncovered.
__________________________________________________
and every woman praying or prophesying with the head uncovered, doth dishonour her own head, for it is one and the same thing with her being shaven,
for if a woman is not covered -- then let her be shorn, and if [it is] a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven -- let her be covered;...
-YLT
OR one might say:
and every woman praying or prophesying with very short hair, does
dishonor her own head, for it is just like her head was shaved
and made bald
for if a woman's head is not covered with long hair- then she
should get her hair cut very short, but since it's a shame for a woman to have her hair cut very short or to have her head shaved and made
bald-she really should have her head covered with long hair.
A few years ago This issue came to my attention so I read up on it. The second to last sentence is the answer: “her hair is given for a covering.” The topic is hair length as a covering for the head. But just like in the subject of modesty (God says dress modestly but does not “draw lines” on our bodies to show how much to cover up), God says a woman should have “long hair” as a covering for her head, but does NOT specify how long it is required to be. And for men it is to be short but scripture does not specify how short it must be as a boundary. Personally I think this is somewhat cultural, and there are obvious levels that would be called “short” or “long”, but no lines are drawn- therefore just like modesty, it is a matter of the heart. But it CLEARLY says “her hair is given for a covering”. So cloth is permitted but not required. Another subject covered by principles in Romans 14.
Really interesting and helpful that you included what Paul wrote in I Timothy! Yes, he would not have mentioned the braiding if the requirement was for women to cover their heads with a cloth covering. I was familiar with those verses but never thought to connect what was said in I Timothy to the topic of covering with cloth. Thank you:)
That is so true. Isn't it great how the Bible confirms things. God bless.
What about makeup? Nail painting? Modest dressing? We know that our lord God doesnt want us as women wearing tight immodest clothing, showing our bodies. We know that Jezebel painted her face to draw in attention to make herself look dif pleasing to the flesh eye. And what did it say about her in the bible?
Where did wedding rings come from? Also.. just like when women weaves all the jewels in their hair to showmoff how much money they have and status, same goes for wearing jewelry on our fingers, neck and putting holes in our ears.. as we should not. Our bodies are a temple and our sacrifice for christ is living for him mind body soul.
(THE WAY I BELIEVE AND LIVE IS NO BETTER THAN ANYKNE ELSE)
Just wanted to mention those things while talking about this topic because it applies the same way.
Right! The only women who wore makeup that were mentioned in the Bible were Jezebel, backslidden Israel (Jeremiah 4:30), and two sisters who were prostitutes (Ezekiel 23:40-44). God made us perfectly without makeup, and it grieves Him when His daughters are using these products. Eyeliner was used to get the attention of Egypt's gods as well as to protect from evil spirits...the origin of makeup in the US was in Red Light Districts. We must look at history as well as the Bible to learn the origins of things we partake in. Christ Himself was not attractive...Isaiah 53:2. May God receive the glory in our lives...not our looks.
I've been watching people "discover" cloth headcoverings for over 30 years now. The divisions it has caused and the behaviors people have exhibited has been purely awful. The judgement people heap on those who don't share their cloth headcovering convictions does NOT come from God. I have found their pride and arrogance to be awful! And I think this "movement" has done a lot to damage the churches. It's like giving an appearance of "holiness" while judging and condemning others and treating them, at times, absolutely hatefully.
Have you ever thought that the vast majority of churches have been nasty, arrogant, and divisive towards the apostles who gave this decree over 2000 years ago? I'm not being dismissive of your actual encounters with those who've had a bad attitude regarding covering. It goes both ways. Some Daughters of God are pushing back against decades of rebellion, which is not an excuse but an explanation. In fact, Paul called those who went against apostolic decree the contentious ones, not the ones obeying the shepherds Christ left in charge until he returns. Right now, it's the contentious ones that have set the standard according to the culture around them. All division isn't bad.
1 Corinthians 11:18-19
[18] For first of all, when you come together in the assembly, I hear that divisions exist among you, and I partly believe it. [19] For there also must be factions among you, that those who are approved may be revealed among you.
Amen you are right. And they still stick to their beliefs using the facts that some churches followed it in the past as though it were biblically true instead of realizing that many people were misled to believe a misinterpreted doctrine. I mean really why focus on the acts of others instead of the bible?
This was such a great explanation! Much needed, thank you! ❤
Although i dont do it myself, i too believe women should cover their head. But none if tge women in tge church i attend wear them. The idea that our hair is our covering doesnt make sense to me. And a question i have is that why do we still practice taking communion as the corinthians did, as talked about in the beginning of the chapter, but then do not practice the wearing of head coverings? Both are in the same chapter. This has never made sense...
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
Nothing to do with public or congregation. Its not just at church but anytime you pray or prophess.
i think these days people are more visually and their passion is growing day by day so it's better to be really covered both men and women. i really wanna know how people seeing each other sexy or hot without seeing each other bodies!
it was priests who wore head covering in the OT. what 1 cor 11 talks about was a custom and tradition of those old times. we dont follow the traditions but we follow now Lord Yeshu Hamashiyah. we dont live according to the flesh but in the Spirit now
I want to be a godly woman, godly wife godly mother and a warrior for God. Thank you for your video. This is going to help me so much. I am new to your channel and can't wait to explore all your other videos. As a Christian woman i would like to know what your thoughts are on being a Christian woman and wearing a veil for God but your husband dislike it. I have already got a veil and put it on one time in the bathroom and would not let my husband see if. I have already thought about wearing it out and about. I have thought about doing that since that is one of God's commandments. That is just one commitment that i would like to keep sacred that i have not broken. I could go into more but feel like it would be a lot to read. Can You Help Me Please. Thank you.
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
"For when we were STILL without strength, IN DUE TIME CHRIST died for the UNGODLY." (Romans 5:6)Do not be overly righteous,
"Nor be overly wise: WHY should you destroy YOURSELF?"
(Eccles. 7:16)
"Walk prudently when you go to THE HOUSE OF GOD; and draw near TO >> H E A R
I believe that one should cover their head when praying or prophesying it says
Obviously were not doing this all day so our hair is given for a covering when not praying our long hair show we're under authority and submission as we should be 😊
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
Amen!
No worries God will show you the truth if you trust in his words and not in someone else's interpretation. God bless.
Great explanation. Thanks!
Amen! That’s the conclusion I came to when a friend tried to tell me that I needed to cover my head and wear skirts over my pants because pants are men’s clothing. Context and understanding the history of that town or church is so important. That’s why we shouldn’t just read the Bible but study it with God as our teacher. We should come to God humbly as if we know nothing when studying the Bible .
It’s actually part of the point note that men in Corinth wore coverings to pray to the Greek gods and women didn’t
He is saying if you cut your hair you need a hair covering if you're hair is long you don't
Question: Can a man wear a hat during prayer and prophecy so long as his hair is short?
1 Corinthians 11 feels like a hinge point and I struggle to have clarity on it. Head covering isn’t mentioned in the OT. However Paul *does* bring up the creation order of Genesis 1. Would he not bring up other OT scripture or law had it been mentioned previously? This is a small part of why I don’t believe this specifically applies to all churches for all time.
No, I do not believe we can pick and choose what we do or do not do. I’m trying to think critically and view this through the cultural lens of the time and refrain from viewing it through my own.
You are right in critical thinking, because some things do not add up. You mentioned that it isn't in the OT and that Paul would have brought it up if it were so. Another is that one would think that both Paul and Peter would have mentioned this when they refer to how women should "adorn" themselves in 1 Tim 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:1-6. That would have been the perfect moment yet they do not mention it. Also another interesting note is that women wouldn’t be getting instructions on how to wear their hair if they were supposed to cover it up., when referring to braided hair. And I have a lot more but the logical conclusion is that sometime after the Bible was written people started misinterpreting scripture and got this idea all wrong, like in other doctrines.
Baptism in the name of the Father, son, and spirit also isn't mentioned in the OT.
The Lord's table also isn't mentioned in the OT.
So, it appears that you're starting from a faulty premise.
16 “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Luke 10:16
1st Corinthians 14:37
2nd Thessalonians 2:15
2nd Thessalonians 3:4-6
1st Timothy 3:14-15
1st Timothy 6:13-14
2nd Peter 3:15-16
Have a great day
@marriage4life893 The typical reason why one would mention that the Head covering is not in the OT (at least for me) is that many have literally told me that it WAS. When it wasn't. I have even been given verses that they have taken to use as evidence when it really had no bearing to a doctrine. So I think there is nothing wrong in establishing this fact in order to understand that it did not originate from the OT. A faulty premise would be that the rejection of such a doctrine was solely based on that. But like hanbloodworth correctly noted that "1 Corinthians 11 feels like a hinge point..." therefore there is NO FAULTY PREMISE due to the OT as 1st Cor 11 is in the NEW TESTAMENT. And that the lack of such a belief in the OT is a "small part" why he does not believe this applies.
Please READ before you make a comment that shows your lack of ability to discern a sentence.🙄
"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;" 1 Tim 2:9 (Where is the veil the woman is to adorn?)
"Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;" 1 Peter 3:1-3 (Where is the veil the woman is to adorn?)
TWO great opportunities to mention that women had to adorn themselves with a veil yet neither Paul or Peter thought it was important to ,mention.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim 3:16-17
Before you start quoting Scripture that states we are to follow God's command you should first prove that a head covering was a DOCTRINE at all, as opposed to the fact that it was simply about covering the head with long hair.
Have a nice day.
1st Tim 6:3-4
Fingernail polish is one thing i gave up as it is a flashy way to draw attention. Clear looks nice and even prettier.
I do still wear jewelry and struggle with that. Jewelry given to me by my mom is think is fine. But random earings and flashy jewels are probably unChristlike. It's a struggle bc jewelry looks so feminine and pretty.
My take on Jewlery, makeup, and nail polish is a Christian can wear it as long as it doesn't become an idol, become more important than your inner beauty, and isn't against your conviction. I feel so happy for you you're giving up on things you feel convicted on. God bless you and Jesus loves you!!
Head covering is talking about a garment. You are to cover during prayer and prophesying. We do need to look at each verse as well. Hair as a covering is not what he is talking about when he says to cover while praying and prophesying. He also mentions that all the churches were doing this. Mike winger has a 6 hour, I kid you not, stream on this. It’s really good. I encourage you to watch it😊
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states:
“But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence.
* Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil?
The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures.
Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic?
If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc.
Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument.
The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples.
* Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions…
Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4?
“Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.”
Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7:
“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses?
We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying.
“Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?”
If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? …..
If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words.
“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV
So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.
@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Amen
This is coming at such a timely moment in my life. I am almost done with the book A Cover for Glory. By Dale Partridge and learning about this topic. Thank you for this video!
I’m reading the same book! I’m about 1/2 way through. What are your thoughts so far? And comparing it to this video?
The beginning of 1 Corinthians specifically states the letter is to Corinth and to all saints everywhere. See verse 2, “To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ-their Lord and ours:”
so I disagree with her initial argument that it’s only to Corinth on the island of lesbos.
Not to mention-how can a woman’s hair be shorn for not wearing “long hair” if it’s already short/shorn? That verse would not make sense if head-covering is “long hair.” 🤷♀️
Does Dale Partridge cover this in his book? Just curious. I’ve read a different one on headcovering.
@@everyoneknowsitslindy6074 Many commenters like to bring that question up regarding verse 6 as one person put it in a comment in a TH-cam video:
“If a woman doesn’t have long hair let her cut her hair? That just doesn’t make sense.”
In other words, they are under the impression that one is confused when explaining verse 6 because why would it ask to cut the woman’s hair if it was supposedly already cut or short? Therefore, this explanation does not make sense as it seems to be repetitive, but this is not being understood correctly. But if "not being covered" (aka uncovered) means having short hair that does not mean that it cannot be cut shorter or shaved off. I have short hair, but neither is it a buzz cut or shaved off bald. Therefore, even though one can have short hair it doesn’t mean that it cannot be cut even shorter or shaved bald.
What is important is to understand what shorn and shaven mean. The word “shorn” is the same word used when you shear sheep. A stubble is left behind. And shaven implies using a razor which implies that all the hair would be taken off. Note that the word “shorn” is repeated alongside the word “shaven” in the KJV as if to confirm and clarify that they are referring to extremely short hair that implies seeing the scalp. A quick look at any dictionary will show that these words are synonymous of being bald. Therefore, by mentioning these words side by side Paul would seem to be emphasizing the fact that women with short hair may as well be made bald or almost bald.
It would also be very difficult to claim that Paul was speaking metaphorically as hair seems to be the main theme here and the removal thereof repeatedly. Why would he repeat the words shaved or shorn unless he was being literal? I think most of us can agree that having short hair (like in a typical male haircut) is NOT the same as having their hair shorn or shaven aka bald. Therefore, a woman being “uncovered” simply means that she has short hair and that in doing so she might as well shave the REST of her hair off. It’s not that complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair.
Unfortunately, people tend to get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seem like some kind of headwear but do not consider all the verses that show that “covering” means long hair and that “uncovered” means short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can we conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet, or veil?
If you believe the Word of God is somebody else's mail, then you will only take what you want from it. That is a big problem from the start, because you can now say the part I don't like belongs to them and the part I do like belongs to me. The Bible is written to every generation, and every Word of it is relevant to all of us. This is why Paul wrote, 2Ti 3:16-17 AKJV 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works. So if we misinterpret scripture, or take what we want from scripture, we may be setting ourselves up for judgment. Deu 12:32 AKJV What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Sorry you misunderstood- all of God’s word is used to teach us. But when we read the epistles we remember that it’s someone’s mail. He’s writing to a certain people, at a certain time, in response to certain topics. It’s a note in understanding context of scripture and not making everything about what we want it to be. Context is always key.
Ok, what is the point you are making in regard to 1Cor 11. What do you believe is not relevant for the church today, and why do you believe this?
I discussed it in the video ;)
Maybe this will help you: www.gotquestions.org/head-coverings.html
Do you remember the incident in the garden between Eve and the Serpent when he deceived her?
Deception means we aren't aware of being hoodwinked until the damage is done, and it's too late!
So what do you think that Paul was referring to in 1Cor 11:10?
Adam was under Christ, but Eve was under Adam; but Adam wasn't around at the time, so the Serpent moved right in and took them out.
Had she been covered, this could not have happened.
God has laws that even the Devil and his Angels must obey as we read in the book of Job
Very helpful information. Thank you for sharing. When I first read this, I thought it meant our husbands were our " covering". 💗💗
And really at the at the end of the day again that's God's judgement or say .. qhat he wl allow or not ... not yours mine or anyone else's a d that's no one's place or authority to say.. and another thing maybe qe should point fingers at ourselves before others.
Who came out with the idea of Jesus Christ with long hair ?
Thank-you for this! I agree!! We are reading someone else's mail! Our hair is our covering. If I lost my hair I'd absolutely cover my head. My husband has had long hair for like a decade, when we became true christians he finally cut it shorter but it is still past his shoulders, he doesn't look anything like a woman though. He is very manly, bearded, big broad shoulders. Is it a rule for men to have shorter hair?
Thank you 🙏🏻 it helped me a lot! ♥️ god bless you and your family
Greetings from Germany 🇩🇪
Next time you pray at church be sure and pull it off.
I actually own a hijab and I wear it for prayer and that’s it. I’m a spiritualist so I’m very open minded. I grew up Mormon so my beliefs are a bit different.
🫱In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth and everything in them. God created a man in His image, after His likeness and named him Adam. The LORD God commanded the man saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." God said that it was not good for the man to be alone, so He created a woman (Eve) from one of Adam's ribs, to be his helper. The serpent (Satan - See Revelation 12:9) was in the garden and he beguiled Adam's wife. She ate from the tree and gave to her husband and he ate of the fruit, disobeying God's commandment. That day they both died spiritually and eventually, physically. Because of the fall everyone is born spiritually dead and in bondage to sin. We must be given a spiritual resurrection (born again) before we can see the Kingdom of God. - You can read all about creation and the fall of man in greater detail from the book of Genesis.
God is Holy, Holy, Holy, and perfectly righteous. He is the Just Judge and so He must and will punish everyone who dies in their sins. God is good, gracious and merciful, but we are not good. We have all broken God's Law (Sin is the transgression of God's Law), many, many times. God's written Word teaches us that in our unregenerate state our hearts are deceitful above all things and desperately wicked and that we are at enmity against God. While many go after false gods and make themselves idols, Scripture tells us that no-one seeks God. Scripture tells us that there is not a just man upon earth, that does good, and does not sin and that all our righteousneses are as filthy rags.
Most people compare themselves to the most wicked men who have ever lived to justify themselves, but it is foolish to compare ourselves to others, because we will all stand in front of the same Judge at the last day, who knows everything about us, even our secret thoughts (those thoughts you don't want anyone to know about) and if He does not see Christ's righteousness when He looks at you, you will be found guilty for your sins and you will be cast into the lake of fire.
The Lord Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh. He was born of a virgin and lived a perfectly sinless life that we do not. The Gospel is the Good News about what the Lord Jesus Christ did for His people. He suffered, bled, and died for our sins, drinking the cup of the Father's wrath in our place, and He rose from the grave on the third day for our justification.
Except for those of us in Christ who are alive and remain when the Lord Jesus Christ returns, everyone is going to die, eventually. One day your soul will be required of you by your Creator. Today could be your last day on earth.
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Hebrews 9:27-28 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. Acts 24:15 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:2 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:8 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:15
If you repent (Repentance is a change of mind that leads to a change of actions), and believe the Gospel, confessing with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believing from your heart that God has raised Him from dead, you will be saved. My hope and prayer is that you will repent and come to the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.
"I Am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me... I Am the Bread of Life: he that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst... I Am the Door: by Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture... I Am the Resurrection, and the Life: he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die. Believest thou this?.. I Am the Light of the world: he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the Light of life... Ye must be born again... Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of Water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again... If ye believe not that I Am He, ye shall die in your sins... Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn Him to death, And shall deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify Him: and the third day He shall rise again... And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God... And this is the will of Him that sent Me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day... Repent ye, and believe the Gospel...I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish... I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I Am He, ye shall die in your sins... I Am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I Am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death... I Am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty... Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I Am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls." - The Lord Jesus Christ🫲
Why is Jesus portrayed with long hair?
There’s a lot of reason but most goes back to the Catholic artists and the inspiration they took when coming up with these- whether we should use them is another topic. There’s not much accuracy, if any at all, with those images. This might help: www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-long-hair.html
Covering the head led to HATS, and I mean keeping up with Mrs Jones to have styles of hats for different dresses. So, hats didn’t really cover hair…….. they were points of pride 🙄🤔then styles changed to no hats.
Maybe you should try wearing a veil. It might actually give you God's perspective on head covering.
I’ll stick to scripture- thanks for sharing though!