I think it's more important now than ever before!

Exactly

Paul also tells people not to get married which taken your way is in a direct conflict with the command from God to be fruitful and multiply. The whole of the new testament is about following the spirit of the law, not being bound by the letter of the law. In some cases, per the sermon on the mount, this means holding ourselves to a higher standard, i.e. lusting in your heart is the same as actually acting on it, and in many cases, per Paul also in Corinthians, this means not being bound by cultural and ritual acts, i.e. circumcision, and various foods. Besides, that section ends with Paul calling hair a head covering. So the question you should ask from your hyper literal interpretation is, "Is it ok from a woman to go bald."

Great point.

Thank you, God bless. You’ve said the truth

Thats biblical. May God bless your assembly! Verses 5 through 7, as well as verse 13, of 1 Corinthians 11 use a form of the Greek word for "veiled", κατακαλύπτω katakalupto; this is contrasted with the Greek word περιβόλαιον peribolaion, which is mentioned in verse 15 of the same chapter, in reference to "something cast around" as with the "hair of a woman … like a mantle cast around". These separate Greek words indicate that there are thus two headcoverings that Paul states are compulsory for Christian women to wear, a cloth veil and her natural hair.

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”. In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the condition 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. - By Bob Parsons

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter so women shouldn't put their hair up while praying or prophesying? it should be left down? this is a sincere question. I'm not being snarkie. this topic has been on my heart and I'm trying to come to some kind of conclusion.

@@farmlife5731 Thank you for your sincerity. I have heard about many ways these verses could be taken but I must admit that putting one's hair up when praying or prophesying is not among the things I hear a lot about. Most of the people I interact with about this topic have yet to mention this interpretation although I am aware of it because of my own research. But the fact of the matter is the Bible states that a woman's head ought to be covered. So even if one were to interpret it as a veil as some people do it would be hard to imagine why one would assume that the hair would need to be "put up." So that doesn't sound like it would make sense. But then there is the interpretation that the covering is long hair in that a woman ought to cover her head with long hair. Now I am aware how this sounds but the key issue is that Paul was not saying that a woman's head ought to be covered under two exclusive conditions like praying or prophesying. The evidence shows that Paul were simply offering two examples. That is why we read only the word "praying" in verse 13. Also recall that the man ought not to be covered when praying or prophesying, So, wouldn't the idea of exclusivity also apply to him? But paul mentions that men ought to be uncovered because he is the image and glory of God? So it isn't when he prays and prophesies that his head should be uncovered, his head should always be uncovered. Now if a woman;s head ought to covered in long hair then it is logical to understand that the man's head should NOT be covered in long hair, since men;s hair is supposed to be short. Therefore to be covered means to be covered in long hair and to be uncovered means to have short hair. We can go on and mention that the women ought to be covered because of the angels and because she is in the second order of creation. So my point is the idea that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying doesn't make sense with the surrounding verses. But if they were referring to long hair then the other verses start to make much more sense.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter ok, thank you! that gives me quite alot to look into and pray on.

Well, I recently read some secular scholarly articles that talk about Greco-Roman culture and in those articles there is historical evidence that says that a woman's head covering was a symbol of being under the authority of a husband and also that it conveyed a message of respectability, chastity and modesty. In the times of Jesus Christ and Paul the domain was Roman and the churches of the letter were under the Greco-Roman culture. It is also possible to read that this practice is a Jewish tradition and also controversial among them. The Jews say that the biblical basis (Torah) is in Numbers 5:18. Although there is no ordinance in the Old Testament regarding a woman covering her head. So we can infer that it was a cultural tradition to them. If you want, I can send you the references mentioned here.

Yep, look up dr. Michael Heiser and head coverings.

@@joroviol if you read the open address to Corinthians Paul writes that it is for all believers everywhere. Not just Corinth. I don't infer anything into the text which isn't there.

The everywhere that Paul refers is to all the churches founded and known in his time. All the churches of all the letters, even those of the Apocalypse were under the Greco-Roman culture: Europe, Asia Minor and Palestine. Also this custom of head covering was practiced in the Jewish religion which Paul once followed before he was a Christian. This Jewish practice is addressed in the Talmud. And as I said, there are several secular articles that show the use of the "palla", rectangular clothing that women used to cover themselves when going out in public, in Greco-Roman culture. Paul was a Roman, born in Tarsus, a city in the Roman province of Cilicia, and was also a Jew. All ancient civilizations, including pagan ones like the Babylonians long before Rome had such a custom (see Isaiah 47:1-3). Rebekah herself, seeing her husband Isaac, covered her head, and there was no biblical ordinance regarding this (see Genesis 24:61-65). It is a fact that the apostle in 1 Corinthians 11 commands the use of the covering. However, there is a context that cannot be ruled out entirely simply because it is not written.

@@joroviol yes, and also the believe that the hair in those days was seen as a part of the reproductive system. That clarifys the part; because of the angels. Gen. 6. See Dr. Michael Heiser, head covering teaching.

Angels don’t cover their heads.

I do not want to arouse anger but angels are spiritual and do not have physical heads as human beings do.

They do??

They cover their eyes with their wings in His holy presence 🙏🏻 It really shows a respect for God’s order. Doesn’t it also show just how beautifully He has created us as women, our hair is our glory and has been made to be captivating and beautiful, so should be cherished. Personally, I’ve noticed a huge difference when wearing one and everything God does is for our good and protection. It goes deeper in many ways (the fall of angels, how they target women), but simply it is for our protection and good, I feel much holier when wearing one and the Lord gave my friend a vision of head coverings with her and the disciples. If we look all the women used to wear them and I aspire to be Holy like the biblical women, for example Mary 🥰 Paul says at the end of Corinthians 11 that He and all others churches do this. God can use anyone regardless but I feel it is so respectful and for our good. Ultimately we have our free will, it wouldn’t be love without it, but hopefully we all choose the correct way God wants for all of our lives. In Jesus name, amen. God bless you all 🙏🏻

the highest angels (seraphims) have sets of wings that cover there head hands feed and full body. We understand that to cover ourselves is out of respect and to honor your father in that way is a beautiful thing. Your beauty is only worth your heavenly father and your husband

Your point.....?

Exactly.. People just like to pick and choose rules that fit their society so they don't feel uncomfortable

Exactly 💯

Eating human meat can be found too. We dont follow culture though

@@mickeyb4441the point is we cannot let the culture we are in influence our ways as Christians

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17‭-‬19 Here is the patience of the saints; here are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Revelation 14:12 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city. Revelation 22:14

It's either cover or shave it bald.

@@Wilbur-mj3fq That section literally calls hair itself a covering. Going bald would be the real sin according to the pro-head covering logic, because he literally calls hair a natural head covering.

Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (Matthew 5:17-18) Hmm, I wonder why the christians refuse Jesus teachings and the way he used to pray

@@necromancerification head coverings was not an old testament law. Even if it were, there is a difference in the moral law and the ceremonial law. We are not bound by the ceremonial laws of the old testament.

Totally Agree. The opening had me all ears. But like most of Driscoll's teachings, he loses me quickly as he falls short in solid exegesis of scripture

I don't see her picture in the bible.if I can have a look at how they dressed.but then again they dressed according to the law of Moses which I am not a follower of because I have the grace through Christ which doesn't give me evil freedom but holy freedom to dress modestly

In 1 Corinthians 11:16, Paul responded to any readers who may disagree with his teaching about the use of headcoverings: "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." This may indicate that headcoverings were considered a standard, universal Christian symbolic practice (rather than a local cultural custom). In other words, while churches were spread out geographically and contained a diversity of cultures, they all practiced headcovering for female members.

It's a sacrifice for the gentiles I believe

The things that Paul wrote were the commandments of the Lord. Paul wrote a letter not chapter and verse. This tradition and principle was abandoned after the 1960s.Modernism has crept in and in the latter days men and women will not endure sound doctrine. This is a timeless and transcultural principle

...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.

...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. ___________________________________________ charlotte Reply for more if desired.

No where. But what;s more shocking that it isn;t even in 1st Corinthians 11. It says that women ought to cover their heads when praying or prophesying but Paul was referring to cover in long hair not in a veil. 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.

I think we really need scholars of the Bible on this one and those who have studied the cultures of the world and their origin.... sometimes this topic I feel like it's an attack on women and trying to put them down.all of a sudden in my church our pastor wants women to cover their heads and when you check the spiritual level of the church at that moment it is very low. We should be asking for the flow of the Holy Spirit in our church not what people should be wearing.

It's true , your hair is your glory but that's why it needs to be covered ( to cover your glory whenever you're praying or prophesying ) In the presence of God. The reason is found Isaiah 42:8 8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another...... Reason number two is found in verse 10 of 1 Corinthians 11. As a symbol of authority and because of the angels. So no , your hair is not the covering otherwise 1 Corinthians 11 verse 6 would not sound oke.

I have an afro and it doesn't cover anything 😢 . It's glorious yes and gets alot of attention. But why is it saying to shave my hair if I'm not covered.

@@VenissaBruce He also says " but since it's shameful for a woman to have her hair cut , she should cover her head "

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.

Which scripture is this

@@ameliahutchinson6990 This is my understanding of 1st Corinthians 11

For if the woman be not covered (in long hair), let her also be shorn (like sheep down to the stubble): but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven (implies the use of a razor bald), let her be covered (in long hair). KJV

...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'. No fabric covering is mentioned in Corinthians. 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.

What about black girls with hair that grow up and never falls on the shoulder 😭😭😭 I Hate always going back and forth with this because I miss having out my hair . But I thought I was praying all the time so I should cover my head with something. I thought the conditions were "praying ,Prophecying , show who's authority you are under. " But thennnn "her hair is given to her as a covering" But some hair don't touch the shoulder ever. 😭😭😭😭😭 what to do!!!! I just wear something and try to stop thinking about my beautiful hair. 🥹😭

...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.

@@undercover513 you wrote: Why else would every single religion cover their heads? The reason would be that the other religions that require a fabric covering are false religions. There was nothing in the Law about women using a fabric covering. So it certainly wasn't part of Judaism. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. -NASB version If the above scripture means a turban, for example, why would God require the priests to wear turbans? Paul certainly would have known about this and maybe seen it. You shall speak to all the skillful people whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may serve as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of checkered work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to Me. -excerpt Exodus 28 Jesus prayed with something on His head while on the cross. A crown of thorns. And they dressed Him in purple, and after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; and they began saluting Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!” -excerpt Mark 15 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” And having said this, He died. -excerpt Luke 23 ******************************************* At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we? “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much. -excerpt Luke 7 Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone... -excerpt John 12 ************* It can only mean the hair is the covering, as the NASB states here: 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. ********************************************************* 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) 1 Corinthians 11 verse 13-15 ************ No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. Therefore no Old Testament reference available. 1 Corinthians 11 starts with this: ...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you... Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered... So, there was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. There was no time to establish a tradition of a fabric covering. There was no way to "hold firmly to the traditions" because you can't start a 'tradition' in a period of time that is just a few years. ************ If the covering was a physical covering, then hair length is irrelevant. No one would know if the woman had long hair or no hair. ************ If a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before acceptable communication with deity can happen, that would make the fabric covering a talisman. Though the woman would not believe she is using a talisman. talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is believed to have spiritual (or magical) properties. The object will align with your intention for its use. Every time you look at a talisman, your mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes a necessary ritual.

The 'covering' is the hair itself. I post on this matter a great deal. I haven't watched this particular video, but am very familiar with the arguments. So many women think they need to wear a fabric covering. It is sad actually. By 198 A.D. there was at least one location where Christian women were forced to fully veil and cover. So this false teaching goes way back and does serious harm. Reply if you wish. Jesus never taught about a fabric covering. Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone... -excerpt John 12

“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 implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That such women are either dishonoring God or their own physical head or husband for failing to wear it which constitutes that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. This verse is also often assumed that the women being referred to in some of these verses already have 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 the covering is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. * 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 but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, neither a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else related. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by the 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 being stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. As I mentioned earlier some will lay claim that they must be referring to a physical head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. Allow me to expand on this if you will because this is very important. If you are going to make the argument to prove your point that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible supposedly claims that women ought to wear a veil based on two conditions, then it is only logical to understand that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one; for example: if the woman is speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should deny this, meaning that the woman should wear their “veil” under other conditions then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. Please note that the belief in women wearing veils for many groups hinges on this “two-condition” argument because if there were actual conditions then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. But keep in mind that it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off. Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promotor 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, if the reason for the man not to cover his head in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying? Should he not be covered under any condition because of this one reason alone? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14. * 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 an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved based on 1st Corinthians 11:5. Now some will also say that Paul was speaking metaphorically but for the moment let’s focus on those who have told me that it was literal. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real-life scenario, 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. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone being shaved? Did people or Christians really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? Doesn’t that seem odd to you? Given that this conclusion doesn’t make sense one should at least consider that perhaps this is a misinterpretation. But what if “uncovered” means “short hair?” Wouldn’t it fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair)? By doing so then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved or likened to being shaved since it is already short. Doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words, it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven rather than being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman even if she has long hair is somehow equal to being shaved. This is how many veil promotors claim the Bible is teaching regardless of its lack of sense. The idea that Paul was speaking metaphorically also doesn’t make sense given that he goes on and on with hair removal in the next verse. “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.” To repeat the same idea of cutting off hair or something that is likened to cutting off hair in two separate sentences and on top of that saying two similar words like shorn and shaven back-to-back should indicate that he was being serious about the topic of cutting off hair. This should negate the false idea that he was speaking metaphorically. 1

...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.

Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. I've been saved a long time, and I post on these matters. Reply if desired.

@@user-iz8np3vv4i you're interpretation makes no sense the way I understand it. It all comes down to Paul specifically talking about praying or prophesying in public. A man should have nothing covering his head and he shouldn't have long hair. A woman should not have short hair and wear a covering. If the hair is the covering then being in public would make no difference and he already made clear the hair lengths based on gender so why repeat that but in a nonsensical way that still has people debating it 2000 years later? Yes, if she refuses to wear a head covering, she should cut off all her hair! But since it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or her head shaved, she should wear a covering.[d] 7 A man should not wear anything on his head when worshiping, for man is made in God’s image and reflects God’s glory. And woman reflects man’s glory. 8 For the first man didn’t come from woman, but the first woman came from man. 9 And man was not made for woman, but woman was made for man. 10 For this reason, and because the angels are watching, a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority.[e] NLT Specifically the part where it says a man should not wear anything on his head when worshipping. If hair is the covering, does that mean when he's not worshipping long hair would be acceptable? I doubt it. Also he repeats the word 'wear' so why would one assume it's anything but the obvious? Something you put on and take off? I think hair and the covering is 2 separate things. I can't help but it interpret those verses that way.

@@conservativesavage1076 My thoughts are below. An essay by FA is next, should you still be interested. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. -NASB version If the above scripture means a turban, for example, why would God require the priests to wear turbans? Paul certainly would have known about this and maybe seen it. You shall speak to all the skillful people whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may serve as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of checkered work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to Me. -excerpt Exodus 28 Jesus prayed with something on His head while on the cross. A crown of thorns. And they dressed Him in purple, and after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; and they began saluting Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!” -excerpt Mark 15 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” And having said this, He died. -excerpt Luke 23 ******************************************* At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we? “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much. -excerpt Luke 7 Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone... -excerpt John 12 ************* It can only mean the hair is the covering, as the NASB states here: 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. ********************************************************* 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) 1 Corinthians 11 verse 13-15 ************ No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. Therefore no Old Testament reference available. 1 Corinthians 11 starts with this: ...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you... Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered... So, there was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. There was no time to establish a tradition of a fabric covering. There was no way to "hold firmly to the traditions" because you can't start a 'tradition' in a period of time that is just a few years. ************ If the covering was a physical covering, then hair length is irrelevant. No one would know if the woman had long hair or no hair. ************ If a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before acceptable communication with deity can happen, that would make the fabric covering a talisman. Though the woman would not believe she is using a talisman. talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is believed to have spiritual (or magical) properties. The object will align with your intention for its use. Every time you look at a talisman, your mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes a necessary ritual. ************

@@conservativesavage1076 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 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. (posted by FA-God-s-Words-Matter Nov. 2023)

...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.

@@user-iz8np3vv4i I suppose we could each offer up translations that support our belief but that's not what I'm saying. Will I be wrong for covering my head? No. Is it possible that we, as Christians, get so wrapped up in the literal translations that we fail to comply with the Spirit of the word? Absolutely. If a woman chooses not to cover then she shouldn't. However, I find it to be a beautiful tradition that we all cover our head at church. We also all wear dresses and stand for the entire Liturgy. I will say that I attend an Eastern Orthodox church and we embrace both the Scripture and Traditions of Ancient Christianity. I'm fascinated by this topic and I'm thankful you responded to my comment. 🙂

@@aburns1999 you wrote: Will I be wrong for covering my head? No. I believe you are wrong. I'm not being nasty. Any/every false teaching does damage in some way. ____________________________________________________ If a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before acceptable communication with deity can happen, that would make the fabric covering a talisman. Though the woman would not believe she is using a talisman. talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is believed to have spiritual (or magical) properties. The object will align with your intention for its use. Every time you look at a talisman, your mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes a necessary ritual. I have more information. Reply if desired.

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.

But you have to look at the historical and literary context. I advise you to learn basic biblical interpretation and hermeneutics. You can find how from great resources online, but also undergraduate bible colleges would even teach these as a freshman.

Context means looking at the culture gaps. If you read the Bible for what it is on the surface, you will stay confused, my friend.

This is why the Bible is so rich in its content.

If you talk about history you have to put an accent on the way transmission of each texts each book each chapter each number. Unfortunately we don't have an accurate transmission for both old and new testaments in any language (Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek).

Bible was for a long time God's word for sure but the presence of contradictions in both texts and interpretation let alone apocryphal heritage can change our look to holy texts

John Calvin was wrong. The Bible NEVER says that "head covering was the cornerstone of modesty" That was Calvin's beliefs not the Bible's. To even think that removing a veil from a head would mean they would soon remove their clothing shows how crazy he was. Thank God not everyone is a Calvinist and that MANY reject him for his weird beliefs.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter true. Head coverings weren’t necessarily the cornerstone of modesty. The Bible never directly says that. Head coverings did cover a woman long hair which is her glory though. One of the things that make a men attracted to women is their beautiful long hair. I personally am very attracted to beautiful hair. He was dead accurate with his prediction of what would happen when they started to loosen their dress standards. Look what we have today. We have free the nipple rallies in New York City. We have woman walking around in tight yoga pants with small belly exposing shirts, and woman show their cleavage without even thinking twice about it (I’ve even seen it at some churches I’ve visited), Christian woman haven’t been a good example and haven’t shown a high standard for non Christian woman in this modern society. It has trickled down to loosened morals and pain for broken families. Did you know that over 50 percent of marriages end in divorce today? 80% of those divorces are initiated by woman. Married women get hit on all the time now. They leave their husbands from all the temptation they receive. A head covering would reduce this as men wouldn’t want to hit on a Christian woman that they’ll assume won’t give them action. It’s really sad what’s happened to woman today. 25% of girls in America ages 16 to 25 now carry a STD. This is disgusting. Standards have gotten too loose, and they need to be tightened up again. Christian woman would help this problem by wearing head coverings like they did before. It would show others that good women still have high standards. So, I think Calvin was 100% on his prediction. He went too far by saying head coverings were the “cornerstone of modesty”, but a loosened dress standard has snowballed into other loose standards we are seeing today. It’s sad.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter I’m not a Calvinist BTW. I just know this is a Calvinist preacher, so I posted a John Calvin quote to show what he said about head coverings. I also posted the same quote on WRETCHED KZfaq channel, because I know they’re Calvinist too.

@@FA-God-s-Words-MatterI’m telling you, watch Mike Winger’s 6 hour lesson on this. He covers all of the views on head coverings. It’s pretty good.

⁠@@FA-God-s-Words-MatterMike Winger is a free will preacher. I’m think he’s semi continuationist, which I sense that you are too based on our conversations. He seems to be right up your alley.

Jesus: Not the other way around

🤦‍♂

...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.

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.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter the head covering is a actual vail. Not the person actual hair also because every woman is not married to a man but we are all married to Christ once baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. A woman praying or prophesying with her head covered gives her power in the spiritual realm. I can remember when my wife I was first learning and had questions about head covering we didn’t always know but wanted to please God. God will lead us to all truth. I thank God for your heart. Follow God always

I pray this would help

@@larenphillips9673 Though I thank you for your intention to help. But I think that perhaps the issue may be that you are using a version of the Bible that leads one away from the true meaning. Allow me to explain. It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the version one is referencing. For example, if we focus on the chapter where this doctrine is almost entirely derived from, 1st Corinthians 11, in the King James Version (KJV) you’ll see the word “cover” where some modern versions have translated it to “veil,” when it shouldn’t. Why? Mainly, because the definition of a “cover” is not exclusively interpreted as a veil, neither a hat nor a bonnet, etc. Some versions also use a variety of other words not found in this passage in the KJV like the words: “symbol,” “sign of authority,” “veiled,” “unveiled,” “public worship,” “wear,” “assembly” etc. Also, some versions use the words “wife” and “husband” whereas the KJV and other Bibles use the words “woman” and “man.” As a result of this some people believe the chapter refers only to married couples, but that is not how it is understood in the KJV. A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of this chapter. You mentioned that the “head covering is an actual veil.” Let’s compare this to verse 15. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. So who do you think I should believe? Now lets us add verse 14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? Again the word “hair” is mentioned (So far “long hair” is mentioned twice and “hair” by itself once. Lets continue reading the context Verse 5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. Shaven has to do with the lack of hair on a head and if a woman has short hair which Paul refers to as uncovered (meaning not covered in long hair) then we can say again that the idea of hair is being referenced. Add to this verse 6 that mention shorn and shaven (again referencing hair). Then again I ask. Who do you think I should believe? If there are references to hair within the context of the passage and not one reference to a hat or veil or the word cloth etc. then why should anyone believe this is so? Simply because someone said so in a church long ago? Then you mentioned something about married women. But there is no mentioning of this in the KJV. This topic was for everyone not married or single couples. Pleasing God also means to follow his teachings not someone’s interpretation of a doctrine. I think you are sincere but one can also be sincerely wrong. I tried to show WITH scripture your comments in comparison with the verses without my opinions to prove that the Word of God alone provides enough evidence that the covering could not be a veil.

You know that Christianity, Islam and Judaism appeared in the Middle East and all three have headscarves

...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)

“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 implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That such women are either dishonoring God or their own physical head or husband for failing to wear it which constitutes that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. This verse is also often assumed that the women being referred to in some of these verses already have 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 the covering is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. * 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 but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, neither a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else related. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by the 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 being stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. As I mentioned earlier some will lay claim that they must be referring to a physical head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. Allow me to expand on this if you will because this is very important. If you are going to make the argument to prove your point that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible supposedly claims that women ought to wear a veil based on two conditions, then it is only logical to understand that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one; for example: if the woman is speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should deny this, meaning that the woman should wear their “veil” under other conditions then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. Please note that the belief in women wearing veils for many groups hinges on this “two-condition” argument because if there were actual conditions then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. But keep in mind that it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off. Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promotor 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, if the reason for the man not to cover his head in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying? Should he not be covered under any condition because of this one reason alone? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14. * 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 an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved based on 1st Corinthians 11:5. Now some will also say that Paul was speaking metaphorically but for the moment let’s focus on those who have told me that it was literal. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real-life scenario, 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. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone being shaved? Did people or Christians really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? Doesn’t that seem odd to you? Given that this conclusion doesn’t make sense one should at least consider that perhaps this is a misinterpretation. But what if “uncovered” means “short hair?” Wouldn’t it fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair)? By doing so then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved or likened to being shaved since it is already short. Doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words, it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven rather than being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman even if she has long hair is somehow equal to being shaved. This is how many veil promotors claim the Bible is teaching regardless of its lack of sense. The idea that Paul was speaking metaphorically also doesn’t make sense given that he goes on and on with hair removal in the next verse. “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.” To repeat the same idea of cutting off hair or something that is likened to cutting off hair in two separate sentences and on top of that saying two similar words like shorn and shaven back-to-back should indicate that he was being serious about the topic of cutting off hair. This should negate the false idea that he was speaking metaphorically. 1

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matteri know this was 6 months ago, but thank you for your explanation! overall, do you think i should wear a head covering like a veil to church even tho i have long hair?

@@uhfrann Well since the Bible teaches us that the long hair is the covering then there is no need to seek a veil for any occasion. 1st Corinthians 11:15 gives us the understanding that the long hair is all that is needed. There is also the fact that the word veil is not found within 1st Corinthians 11 (KJV) so we don't want to confuse people by using a veil as most will automatically assume that one is following something biblical when it is not a requirement.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter okay thanks 🫶 i ordered a head wrap since i felt like i needed to by the Holy Spirit :)

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.

“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 implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That such women are either dishonoring God or their own physical head or husband for failing to wear it which constitutes that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. This verse is also often assumed that the women being referred to in some of these verses already have 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 the covering is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. * 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 but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, neither a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else related. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by the 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 being stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. As I mentioned earlier some will lay claim that they must be referring to a physical head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. Allow me to expand on this if you will because this is very important. If you are going to make the argument to prove your point that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible supposedly claims that women ought to wear a veil based on two conditions, then it is only logical to understand that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one; for example: if the woman is speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should deny this, meaning that the woman should wear their “veil” under other conditions then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. Please note that the belief in women wearing veils for many groups hinges on this “two-condition” argument because if there were actual conditions then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. But keep in mind that it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off. Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promotor 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, if the reason for the man not to cover his head in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying? Should he not be covered under any condition because of this one reason alone? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14. * 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 an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved based on 1st Corinthians 11:5. Now some will also say that Paul was speaking metaphorically but for the moment let’s focus on those who have told me that it was literal. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real-life scenario, 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. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone being shaved? Did people or Christians really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? Doesn’t that seem odd to you? Given that this conclusion doesn’t make sense one should at least consider that perhaps this is a misinterpretation. But what if “uncovered” means “short hair?” Wouldn’t it fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair)? By doing so then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved or likened to being shaved since it is already short. Doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words, it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven rather than being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman even if she has long hair is somehow equal to being shaved. This is how many veil promotors claim the Bible is teaching regardless of its lack of sense. The idea that Paul was speaking metaphorically also doesn’t make sense given that he goes on and on with hair removal in the next verse. “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.” To repeat the same idea of cutting off hair or something that is likened to cutting off hair in two separate sentences and on top of that saying two similar words like shorn and shaven back-to-back should indicate that he was being serious about the topic of cutting off hair. This should negate the false idea that he was speaking metaphorically.

If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, we should be asking when they are referring to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV If the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s the case, then to be uncovered would mean to have short hair. If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is very important so please don’t dismiss it. Be honest with yourself do YOU really believe that the average person will look at an unveiled, praying woman and naturally think a VEIL is missing? Are we to assume that Paul expected the average person to have instilled within them the idea that a foreign object is missing from a woman? I have never seen or heard anyone say something like: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head?” after looking at a long-haired, praying woman. To so do would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. I think can say with some assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a woman with short hair especially if we are looking at their backs to confirm whether the person was male or female. It seems like a natural reaction especially when we were young. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong: whether it be OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (a.k.a. short hair) while praying or OBSERVING a man having long hair. In addition, by using the word “NATURE” one can’t even use the excuse that perhaps they were expecting only Christians to see something different. Clearly, if “nature” teaches us that something looks off then it must be including all of mankind as nature teaches all of us both Christian and non-Christian. I would like to also add that these verses are NOT jumping from the discussion of a “veil” in verse 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in verse 14 like some would like to argue because you will note that verse 15 refers again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” is to mean “long hair.” Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses are referring to hair length. By this, we can understand verse 4 which states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered as I previously mentioned. I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due to the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is exclusive to two conditions instead of seeing them as two examples. As mentioned before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. If the Bible states that a woman ought to cover their head wouldn’t they think they are referring to a head covering as it would be strange to think he meant to quickly grow their hair long? I don’t think Paul who was telling women to keep the custom of keeping their hair long expected their hair to quickly grow. This type of argument almost seems as if Paul was not telling women to keep their hair long in the same way he was saying men ought not to have long hair as read in verse 14. Because the main argument of veil promoters is that Paul was pushing for women to wear a veil as opposed to what the rest of us are saying that he was saying for them to keep their hair long. No one is saying that women ought to cover their heads instantaneously if they are not covered in long hair, but that they should be covered and that they should keep that custom. Is it true that those who promote the wearing of veils believe that if a woman is not covered in a veil she should have her head shaved? As similar as it sounds to what we spoke of in verse 5, in this section we are not talking about the equivalency of a woman’s unveiled head to being shaved but about literally shaving a woman’s head. Now I cannot say this for all veil promoters but I have been told many by of them that this is what the Bible teaches. They base this belief on verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted just as they do with verse 5 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 as something of a punishment. The idea is that back then Christian women were disciplined by having their heads shaved. 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 already is illogical), and then in verse 6 they believe that if the woman is not covered in a veil 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 they normally 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, they make it seem as though it is weirder than their extreme and illogical conclusions. It is my belief that some reach these conclusions mainly because they’ve allowed themselves to be brainwashed rather than having made a careful study of the Scriptures.

(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.) Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. -excerpt John 12 A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes Reply for post if desired. It includes scriptures and commentary.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 addresses the issue of women and head coverings. The context of the entire passage of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is submission to the God-given order and "chain of command." A "covering" on a woman’s head is used as an illustration of the order, headship, and the authority of God. The key verse of this passage is 1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." The implications of this verse are found in the rest of the passage. The order is: God the Father, God the Son, the man or husband, and the woman or wife. The veil or covering on the head of a believing Corinthian wife showed that she was under the authority of her husband, and therefore under submission to God. Within this passage is also verse 10: "For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels." Why is that important to angels? The relationship of God with men is something that angels watch and learn from (1 Peter 1:12). Therefore, a woman’s submission to God’s delegated authority over her is an example to angels. The holy angels, who are in perfect and total submission to God, expect that we, as followers of Christ, be the same. This covering not only means a cloth but also can refer to a woman’s hair length. How can we say that? We must take this verse in the context or the setting in which it is presented. "Does not even nature itself 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 for a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:14-15). Therefore, in the context of this passage, a woman who is wearing her hair longer marks herself out distinctively as a woman and not a man. The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship. The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God. But why is hair an issue in this passage? The apostle Paul is addressing an issue related to the Corinthian culture that was being allowed to disrupt the church. For a woman to have a shaved head was a disgrace (and, in Jewish thinking, a sign of mourning, Deuteronomy 21:12). Her hair was her “glory” (1 Corinthians 11:15). In the Corinthian culture, women normally wore a head covering as a symbol of their submission to their husbands. Paul affirms the rightness of following that cultural mandate-to dispense with the head coverings on women would send the entirely wrong signal to the culture at large. In fact, Paul says that, if a Christian woman refuses her head covering, she might as well shave her hair off, too (verse 6). A woman who refused to wear a covering in that culture was basically saying, “I refuse to submit to God’s order.” Therefore, the apostle Paul is teaching the Corinthians that hair length or the wearing of a “covering” by the woman was an outward indication of a heart attitude of submission to God and to His established authority. God’s order is that the husband is the head of the wife as God is the head of Christ, but there is no inequality or inferiority implied. God and Christ are equal and united, just as the husband and the wife are one. This is not a passage that teaches the woman is inferior to man or that she should be submissive to every man. It is teaching God’s order and spiritual headship in the marriage relationship. In the Corinthian culture, a woman who covered her head during worship or when she was in public displayed her submission to authority. In today’s culture, we no longer view a woman’s wearing of a head covering as a sign of submission. In most modern societies, scarves and hats are fashion accessories. A woman has the choice to wear a head covering if she views it as a sign of her submission to the authority of her husband. However, it is a personal choice and not something that should be used to judge spirituality. The real issue here is the heart attitude of obedience to God’s authority and submission to His established order “as to the LORD” (Ephesians 5:22). God is far more concerned with an attitude of submission than an outward display of submission via a head covering. First Timothy 2:9-10, "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God."

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter As you can see the bible doesn’t allow women to be pastors or preach or serve in the altar of Christ. It really isn't difficult: God's Word clearly states that only men are able to fulfill the role of pastor because men are to lead and women are to submit to men, whether wives to their husbands, or women to their pastors (1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 11:3, Eph 5:22-24).In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (1 Timothy 2:13-14). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors over men, since pastoring definitely includes preaching, teaching publicly, and exercising spiritual authority. There are many objections to this view of women in pastoral ministry. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, then the majority of Jesus’ disciples would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women of Ephesus from teaching men (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, the pastor of the church in Ephesus). Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, and women were the authorities in that branch of paganism-therefore, the theory goes, Paul was only reacting against the female-led customs of the Ephesian idolaters, and the church needed to be different. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention the standard practice of Artemis worshipers as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. A third objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words for “woman” and “man” in 1 Timothy 2 could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words is broader than that. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to all men and women, not just husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a narrowing to husbands and wives in verses 11-14. Yet another objection to this interpretation of women in pastoral ministry references women in positions of leadership in the Bible, specifically Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. It is true that these women were chosen by God for special service to Him and that they stand as models of faith, courage, and, yes, leadership. However, the authority of women in the Old Testament is not relevant to the issue of pastors in the church. The New Testament Epistles present a new paradigm for God’s people-the church, the body of Christ-and that paradigm involves an authority structure unique to the church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity. Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. In verse 18, Priscilla’s name is mentioned first, suggesting to some that she was more prominent in ministry than her husband. (The detail of whose name comes first is probably inconsequential, because in verses 2 and 26 the order is reversed from that of verse 18.) Did Priscilla and her husband teach the gospel of Jesus Christ to Apollos? Yes, in their home they “explained to him the way of God more adequately” (Acts 18:26). Does the Bible ever say that Priscilla pastored a church or taught publicly or became the spiritual leader of a congregation of saints? No. As far as we know, Priscilla was not involved in ministry activity in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. In Romans 16:1, Phoebe is called a “deacon” (or “servant”) in the church and is highly commended by Paul. But, as with Priscilla, there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that Phoebe was a pastor or a teacher of men in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not for deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the reason why women cannot be pastors perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for,” giving the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived” (verses 13-14). God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. The order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and in the church. The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men (1 Timothy 2:14). This does not mean that women are gullible or that they are all more easily deceived than men. If all women are more easily deceived, why would they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? The text simply says that women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. God has chosen to give men the primary teaching authority in the church. Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, evangelism, and helping/serving. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15). God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This does not imply men are better teachers or that women are inferior or less intelligent. It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership-in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This bars women from serving as pastors to men. This does not make women less important, by any means; rather, it gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and gifts.

2:50, still no Scriptures.

Proverbs 6:13 “He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers;” King James Version (KJV)

4:54, Now, a vacation story... Let's hear it.

5:46 No, no lawsuits. It's in the social agreement. Go for it!

Still no Scriptures, although now talking about going, to the bar.

Of course a covering is needed. It is a woman's long hair. NASB translation: For her hair is given to her as a covering.

The scripture on head-covering requirement is very clear

@@Vic-zg5zd No, it was a cultural thing. You have to study the history of those times.

​@@JS-tr7oo it is a religious obligation, that was taken over by culture to stop abiding by it. It clearly says Corinthians 11:6 that if you should not cover your head, to shave yourself bald. How is your long hair a covering when the hair is what is supposed to be covered? That's the point. Shave yourself bald or use a head cover. Those are the options.

@@Wilbur-mj3fq I go by what God told me and HE gave me a message to give to the people and my head was not covered. I believe God, not you. You do err in the scriptures and the customs and the times of the people back then.

@@JS-tr7oo yes im sure God told you what you wanted to hear. while disobeying the rule he placed upon you in order to speak to Him.

...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'. No fabric covering is mentioned in Corinthians. 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.

No. There are plenty of historical pieces of information available that are not explicitly mentioned in The Bible. The Bible is a relatively short book. It doesn't cover every last detail of what life was like back then. That's why annotated study bibles exist.

(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.) Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. -excerpt John 12 A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes Reply for post if desired. It includes scriptures and commentary.

The head covering is long hair. If you claim to trust the word of God then don't let others tell you the covering is a foreign object but long hair. Read 1st Corinth 11:15.

@FA-ky7wk well I appreciate your response but what do you do with 1 Corinthians 11:4-7. Why will choose verse 15 over these 4 verses? Can you please read these verses again word by word? Forget what you have been taught just read them by your self Thanks

@user-iz8np3vv4i thanks for your comment. But the Bible does not tell us anywhere that Mary was a married woman. The Bible is talking about someone whose Married. 1 Corinthians 11:4-7. if you say that verse 15 is more important than verse 4 to verse 7 then these 4 verses means absolutely nothing. But I believe that verse 15 is defining the set norm with believers all over the Churches of GOD. Because the verse 16th conforms verses 4 to 7.

@@jesusistheonlysaviour5535 Verses 1 Corinthians 11:4-7 are very good verses to prove my point I am not bound to verse 15 alone but then again you seem to want to brush it aside. Hmm? I’ve written a lot about these verses which I shortened here. Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” So, there seems to be another reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should he not be covered under any condition because of verse 7? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14. 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. Now course they will say that Paul was speaking metaphorically but why would a woman, who typically would have long hair, be equated to being shaved if they did not wear the alleged veil? It doesn’t make sense. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real-life scenario 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. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone being shaved, as in shaved bald? Did Christians really look at unveiled women this way? Doesn’t that seem odd? But what if “uncovered” means “short hair” not shaved like in bald but simply cut short like a typical man’s haircut? Wouldn’t it fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair)? By doing so then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be likened to being shaved bald since it was already short. Doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words, it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven 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 to being shaved as veil promoters claim. This is how they claim the Bible is teaching regardless of its lack of sense. 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 but 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. 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 of them normally 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, they make it seem as though it is weirder than their extreme and illogical conclusions. It is my belief that some reach these conclusions mainly because they’ve allowed themselves to be brainwashed rather than having made a careful study of the Scriptures.

...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. elizabeth The covering isn't fabric. I post on this matter. A lot of them tube 'teachers' get this wrong.

@@user-iz8np3vv4i and now I understand the nature part. As you cote it it is becoming clear to me what apostle Paul meant here. I wonder why because it is the same people who tell us that they went to Bible School who come with confusing teachings in the church.and they make it sound like Paul was implying that there is something wrong with women and like God doesn't like us. Sometimes it's the tone on their voices and the bitterness you can sense in their hearts. I want to go do theory but I don't know which is the right Bible College to go to

@@elizabethsokutu1227 you wrote: "...something wrong with women and like God doesn't like us." I am not a teacher, but I am very much against Complementarianism. I have my post on that, that is a 2 minute read. I also have an free essay on Deborah. As a Judge, she was a pastor/shepherd. This according to God as written in Chronicles. Read time: 15 minutes Miriam was also a leader, along with Moses and Aaron, according to God, in scripture. Reply if desired.

@@elizabethsokutu1227 Complementarianism The priesthood of the New Covenant is tiered. There is a hierarchy. A new believer is automatically assigned their level, higher or lower, at the moment of salvation, as a birthright. Their gender determines their tier. A Christian can not move to a higher or lower tier. A church can be made up of only men, because men are in the higher tier. Men are the superior gender, being male, and therefore more like God who is masculine. Therefore men can be leaders, for example, elders. A church can NOT be made up of only women, because women are in the lower tier. Women are the inferior gender, being female, and therefore less like God who is masculine. Therefore women can't be leaders, for example, elders. So even a large group of women can not be a valid church under any circumstances. For this group of women to become a valid church at least one man must join it as an elder. The addition of just one higher tier Christian would instantly form a valid church. ____________________________________ But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood... -excerpt 1 Peter 2 A 2-tiered priesthood doesn't exist, but this is what Complementarianism supports. It is a false teaching. It uses double-talk by telling women they are equal to men, yet states that women can't teach men. It states that a group of Christian women can not be a church under any circumstances.

...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'. No fabric covering is mentioned in Corinthians. 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.

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.

When ?

@@Helensibhat135 this was about a month ago. I asked for a sign . The scripture Talking about head coverings was talking about gender roles not actually covering ya heads . You gotta read the context around it

@@Helensibhat135 back then people use to cross dress , women dressing like men , men dressing like women. It happens now with drag queens and lesbians

What was the sign you get?

What was the sign you get?