The King James translators even said it themselves with their alternate translation in the margin of verse 10. "That is, a covering, in sign that she is under the power of her husband." Also in verse 15 they provide the alternate of "Or, veil." for covering. It is also incoherent to make it about hair since then it would read: 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with *shorn hair* dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be *shorn,* let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be *not shorn.*

Praise the Lord! I do understand where you’re coming from, as the same could be said, why does he mention hair then, if it’s not about hair… But I’m curious to know how you then interpret verse 15. When reading in Greek we see it does not say: long (adjective) hair (noun). But it’s a verb which means: to let hair grow out. It continues and actually states for the first time the noun used for “covering”: her hair is given her for a veil/covering/clothe/mantle (noun). How do you put it then, that an additional veil is needed, if her hair is given as such? It seems to be that Verse 15 is the answer to all the “confusing verses” before that. (I carefully say that, but many scholars agree this chapter is really not a easy one.) God bless! PS: I just noticed I am commenting on the thoughts of the initial comment AND the first comment of that comment😂. I thought it came from the same person.

@jsn4him368 the Early Church Fathers were mostly Greek speaking people, and none of them interpret this passage as saying that long hair is the covering St. Paul is talking about. The only debate (such as it was) was whether unmarried women needed to cover their head with a veil or not...and the answer was that they did.

@@fr.johnwhiteford6194 Thank you for your reply! Just to understand… you are saying what Paul wrote in this sentence doesn’t really matter. But more weight is put on what the early church fathers, who lived after Paul, said and believed? And this isn’t an attack, I’m just seeing, if I understood correctly what you wrote, since to me Paul wrote in very clear Greek, that the hair was given as a covering.

@@jsn4him368 I am not saying that what St. Paul wrote doesn't matter. I am saying it is clear from the text itself, as well as from the history of the interpretation of the text that when St. Paul says women should cover their heads in Church, he was speaking of a veil, and not long hair... which women normally had back then without anyone having to instruct them to have long hair.

I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.

@@robertmiller812 There are many problems with what you said, and I don't have the time to address them, but have you ever read the Fathers? The Bible didn't drop out of space, and the earliest Christians didn't see it like you did, including the disciples of the Apostle John. The Church had the view that it was veils for over 1900 years and somehow we just figured out what it meant the same time as feminism by coincidence? Also worth noting is if you were in fact correct, then men must be bald since it doesn't say "less covered" it says "uncovered" If hair is the covering, then men need to shave their head. Seriously, where do you think the idea of men taking their hats off when in church or doing other solemn things like pledging to the flag came from?

@@DrGero15 Why would you want me to put aside the Word of God to believe in the fallacy of men which you generically write as “the Fathers?” Am I supposed to guess who you are referring to? You seem to prefer the words of men rather than the words of God. If you had more respect to the words of God than men then you would know that “the Church” that you refer to (which I do not who are you including) who followed this false doctrine were wrong for years. Because the Bible ALREADY gave us an example of how God’s people were wrong about a doctrine for centuries. You should read up on Acts 7:47-52, where God’s people thought it was ok to built temples for years when God did not want that and was evidently upset. So you really need to stop trying to find outside sources to follow this false doctrine. God even says that HIS people are destroyed due to lack of knowledge Hosea 4:6. Doctrine is confirmed by the scriptures not by how long or how many people followed a doctrine. Seriously read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 You stated that “If hair is the covering, then men need to shave their head.” This shows that you do not understand the scriptures clearly you are referring to verse 4 and for some reason you think that I am saying the “uncovered” means to be bald, when I made no such definition. If a woman is supposed to cover her head with LONG hair (aka covered) then what is the obvious understanding when it says a man is supposed to be uncovered? That he should have SHORT hair. Instead you want to put words in my mouth that I NEVER stated. You should have more respect to the Word of God instead of brushing aside and following after theories and man-made church traditions or especially like how you mentioned SOME take their hats off during solemn moments as if that were some kind of proof. This made me really sad to read how much you cling to non-biblical and unprovable traditions rather than God’s holy words.

@@robertmiller812 So are you! The difference is my tradition is almost two thousand years older. You assume you have some knowledge and are better than Billions of Christians over thousands of years. I couldn't be that prideful. You are misunderstanding the text or I wouldn't even bother bring up history. The men who translated the AV understood it to be referring to veiling, they put it in the chapter summery and marginal notes. Do you really think you know more about what it means than those who learned directly from St. John the Revelator? Where does it say short? It says Covered and Uncovered. If covered is hair than uncovered is no hair. You are arguing for covered and less covered which is added subjectivity to the objective words on the page. What counts as long? How many inches? Sounds like to be safe and make sure we are obeying we need woman to never cut their hair and for men to cut all of it off. What if in God's mind, long is over 1/4 inch? Then most men are in sin. What if long is 48 inches? Then some women can't even grow long hair and no men are ever in sin even if they grow their hair out. You need to read all of Acts 7 since you are getting lost in the weeds and coming up with weird doctrine by mixing words from two different paragraphs and mistaking a quote from Isaiah as a condemnation. God had no issue with the Temple they built. His problem with them is in the last half of the sentence you cut in two in your citation (which is bolded below), the last line in Stephens discourse "who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it." Acts 7:37-53 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: to whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. *But Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things? Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers* : who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

@@robertmiller812 So are you! The difference is my tradition is almost two thousand years older. You assume you have some knowledge and are better than Billions of Christians over thousands of years. I couldn't be that prideful. You are misunderstanding the text or I wouldn't even bother bring up history. The men who translated the AV understood it to be referring to veiling, they put it in the chapter summery and marginal notes. Do you really think you know more about what it means than those who learned directly from St. John the Revelator? Where does it say short? It says Covered and Uncovered. If covered is hair than uncovered is no hair. You are arguing for covered and less covered which is added subjectivity to the objective words on the page. What counts as long? How many inches? Sounds like to be safe and make sure we are obeying we need woman to never cut their hair and for men to cut all of it off. What if in God's mind, long is over 1/4 inch? Then most men are in sin. What if long is 48 inches? Then some women can't even grow long hair and no men are ever in sin even if they grow their hair out. You need to read all of Acts 7 since you are getting lost in the weeds and coming up with weird doctrine by mixing words from two different paragraphs and mistaking a quote from Isaiah as a condemnation. God had no issue with the Temple they built. His problem with them is in the last half of the sentence you cut in two in your citation (which is bolded below), the last line in Stephens discourse "who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it." Acts 7:37-53 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us: to whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt, saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us: for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon. Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; who found favour before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. *But Solomon built him an house. Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things?* *Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:* who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.

I’ll try.

I agree

I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.

Yes, Romans 14 comes into play there, no doubt about it.

I wouldn't go too far with the Mennonites and Amish women, although it is nice to see that they keep their hair long (though you can't tell behind the veils they wear) and wear dresses they are still stuck in a cult and that we ought to pray for them to be free from their religion.

I have always certainly respected your perspective when you comment. You seem to have a very good walk with the LORD.

@@NewLifeOfAlbanyGa I read back through my comment and it sounds pretty dogmatic itself, lol. Sorry, I have just done a lot of study in Galatians, Romans, Hebrews about grace and Judaizers bringing the law back on Christians. When I was in the UPCI, there was so much emphasis on the outward appearance, mainly for women, it felt like bondage, and I still think it is. The thing is, when you have “holiness standards”, it mostly takes away the need for someone to seek God for themselves about these subjects because, if they are following “the rules”, they are good! There is so much room for carnality of spirit. In the church I attend now, the people are generally much more spiritually minded than those I found in the UPCI. It is a Pentecostal church, but there is no emphasis on outward appearance, only emphasis on inward holiness. Once leaving the UPCI, it was apparent how much of an idol the outward appearance of women was in the general attitude of the people, and I didn’t go to churches where holiness standards were preached a lot. If you “allow” the people to pray and seek God for themselves, and encourage them to do so, I think you end up with a more pure and holy people. I’m sure you’ll never leave the UPCI, so it would be hard for you to see the difference in the culture objectively. It’s like the difference in the Jewish people of Jesus’ day. He said in the Sermon on the Mount, Moses said to not commit adultery, but I say if a man lusts after a woman he has committed adultery already in his heart. He was calling us to a higher standard than laws written on tablets of stone. He was calling us to a relationship with a holy God, who alone can make us holy! Outside standards and rules can never do what Jesus can do in a heart, and the heart is what God is after. God bless! I am striving every day for a closer walk with the Lord and battling the devil and my flesh to get there!

Praise the Lord! You know we call things bad theology at times without putting things in perspective - and once I started do that, it helped me understand so much and set me free from bondage I didn’t even know I was in. What I mean with that, is we seemingly need to overemphasize things nowadays, like outward appearance, because it has taken a place in society and the church that has never existed before. Example: When my grandma was a small child (she never was and unfortunately still isn’t a Christian) she had uncut, long hair, like all girls. Hair dressers for females had just became a thing in her days, and she had her hair cut as a teen, which she has it short to this day. In other words this topic hair seems so weird to discuss in our times, but until 100 years ago cutting it was not the social norm. Yes, it existed to some extent, e.g. in N.T. days for Greek God worship and maybe even some fad of only the wealthy. The same with what we wear and sex distinction. We see where we are in society now, brushing off outward appearance as minimal and not necessary. Just within the last 20-30 years (at least my experience and I did not grow up apostolic) church has lost so much of the fear of God. Do we really see the churches stronger and with more power, now that we are free to look like and wear whatever they want? (Ponder on this: did it really take the church 2000 years to realize outward holiness doesn’t matter? And I’m saying this ironically, but with respect) Not at all. BUT I do want to say this does not excuse a church/people in the church that appear holy on the outside to be nasty in the inside. Which I have experienced as well. And I think thats what gives a bad rep to holiness/apostolic churches. Social media isn’t helping 😅 A revival of love is needed!!! Many blessings!!! May God continue to lead and guide you!!

@@jsn4him368 I appreciate the spirit in which you replied to my comments! I understand where you’re coming from. I also believe the Lord is capable of convicting each of us in EVERY area of our lives. He wants a close, submitted relationship with His children. When we emphasize any aspect of our lives and call a certain standard “holy”, we remove the ability for the Lord to convict us about that aspect of our lives. I have seen many apostolic women dress ostentatiously or provocatively while still following the “holiness standards” and I’m sure you have too. I’ve always thought it was funny how the apostolic church picked the 1940s to be the standard of “holy” dress for women. Why not pick the standard from the 1890s? Any woman showing her ankle back then was considered scandalous and a loose woman! What not pick the standard of the burka? That way everything is covered up. You see, it’s all somewhat relative. That’s why Jesus wants our hearts, we are really bad at making rules for other people. And it is just bondage to tell someone else they should live by my convictions and the way I interpret scripture. I wish you well! May we all continue to grow in the Lord and keep surrendering our hearts and listen to that still, small voice.