what is this....whole church.....called....

I feel thy same way....

Thanks for being obedient.

I think you are right! I am a Christian woman but you put my own thoughts in very coherent words. I just started covering more frequently within the last few months and admittedly feel much safer from unwanted attention and less 'worldly' when I do wear it.

@@allthingsthroughhim3856 God bless you, I know how hard it is to act on your beliefs even when it sets you apart from the majority.✌🏼❤️

@@lutfchehne1 yes, it really is like swimming upstream as a follower of Christ in a very 'christian' country. God bless you too and love to you in Christ Jesus.

What if when women are in safe environments?

@@allthingsthroughhim3856 even when women are in safe environments?

"9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? 10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Jeremiah 17:8-10 (KJV)

I think it's funny that the guy preaching is currently funding robotic driven vehicles and advancements to the electrical grid to attempt to prolong the inevitable end of this modern way of living that satan and his minions have pushed onto humanity but is a bit obsessed with women wearing head coverings (which I totally believe is right for women to wear). Lukewarm is not something we should be. Go hard or go home. This guy and his "kingdom" advisers and investors have enough cold hard cash to create a bartering based community system where mammon is completely done away with but that would mean they would have to figure out how to live like humans did for thousands of years before Edison created electricity that is available to the masses and obviously that is too much work for them?

@@johnplain1546he's talking about a specific passage of Scripture prescribed to Christians. Can you provide Scripture specifically against electricity or this "modern grid" that you're referring to? (I'm not trying to be contentious but just wondering what your basis is for ranting about electricity and mammon without using any Scripture).

@@johnplain1546 this is not even to point out the fact that you've used some modern technology just to watch/comment on this video, so what are you saying, exactly?

@@220SouthlandAve tell me something I dont know. Maybe I will respond

God bless you Richard. Thank you for your encouraging words.

Hey. So you find it meaningful that your wife wears a head covering? Do you dress like the men in Corinthians?

@@johnplain1546 No, John, I don't, other than the fact that I don't cover my head as Paul directed them not to cover theirs. Nor does Nancy dress like the Corinthian church women other than that she covers her head as Paul gave instruction.

@@johnplain1546 you are trolling this video pretty hard, aren't you?

@@220SouthlandAve this made me laugh even though it's not funny. The answer is yes.

Wow I never thought of that. Great point!! And in Revalation it talks about the elders in heaven laying down their crowns

Thanks for this wonderful revelation. Precious.

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

If you have short hair, that may be why, because that would be the only good reason to cover your head. Otherwise, if your hair is long, it is your God-given covering, and you should not think that you can do better with a man-made covering.

You are a brave woman and you deserve honor for that! Keep on doing that because it also the test for women on their obedience, submission and humbleness. But remember, it is not only about head covering, it is also about the way you dress in general... deep cut out shirts, tight shirts or any other piece of clothing... And to answer the question WHY it is so today? Because we are living in the last days, Satan hates humanity that is represented in the male, because he stands for human race and Satan is trying to flip everything upside down from what it originaly was! So he wants women to rule over man, he wants man shave to look like woman, he wants man to dress like women and around, he wants to destroy marriage, our sex orientation and lastly to bow down to man, instead of God and worship man instead of God! What do I mean by that? The final rebellion against God is that we exchange the day of worship from God has originally established to "another" day.... yes, God said (Exodus 20:8): KEEP THE SABBATH (Saturday) holy, and man in his rebellion says NO, we will worship on the day we want... and starts worshiping on Sunday, the day of the SUN. And this will be the final test for humanity and then the end will come. Jesus will return to take those that obey HIM and HIS commandments to be with him forever... Remember, Satan will come as the angel of light ... to deceit those that are not grounded in the WORD OF GOD! The man in Rome is the beast of Revelation 13 and the whole world will bow down to him by observing the day papacy said we will worship... Deception is the name of the game. Do not be fooled, keep your eyes open. God loves you, young woman! God bless you and keep you. Greetings from Joseph, Loud Cry Ministries, Czech Republic.

@@hlasitevolani1575 Brave? Really? don't you think you may be laying it on a bit thick. For just wearing a hat? I don;t see that wearing a hat is going to make anyone brave especially nowadays when almost no one cares even you one wears nothing at all.

@@JohnYoder-vi1gj Oh brother, I wanted to express support to this young woman and yes, don´t be misstaking, it is not easy for them sometimes. Anyway, either way, it is good she started doing that. And you don´t know me, so there is no need to say that I do not care about something. Yes, I do care very very much and I am one of those that teach how to dress modestly etc. However I do this in Czech language because I am Czech, currently living in my home country. Clothing is very very important subject today. Even my own daughter does not want to listen to me, not even my wife, because they love this world and its ways. I love God and Jesus and his ways. And that is what I teach. And that is the reason why so many people here do not like me, but that´s ok, I will still preach the truth. God be with you. Shalom.

@@hlasitevolani1575 I think support is all well and good but it really is too much to say. It's like saying one is brave for putting on shoes or something. And I was referring that we live in a world were most people do not care not that you do not care. In other words most people (in the world) will not even flinch at whether someone wears a hat or not. I understand that in the Czech Republic it may be different but overall it really isn't a major issue anymore. Also the only part that gave the slightest inkling of an issue was her own feelings of "strangeness" In other words it was her own internal feelings and not someone or some group who said or did anything. So if you are saying that she is brave because she seems to be the only one doing that in her church then I think it doesn't seem allocated appropriately. Just like if she were the only one to wear gloves there is no need to invoke bravery here either. She thinks she needs to wear a hat that is her own business though she does not need to, biblically speaking. But lets reserve the word bravery to those who really are fighting for the cause and preaching the gospel.

An update on how it has been? 🤔

I just started this year I feel I should and it has really helped me

Help you in what?

Thank you for typing out this well-thought comment. It has a lot of merit and convicting information regarding the headcover stated in a truthful and loving manner. I'm a woman who has been recently convicted to start covering more frequently and actually attending a Mennonite church for the first time this coming Sunday with my husband.

@@allthingsthroughhim3856 Yes, I love these verses and can't wait to study them further. I started cover about 1.5 yes ago. It has definitely been controversial for my family (painful still) but my non covering church has yet to say anything and my friends have been just fine with it. I haven't found a "religion" that I 100% agree with, but i keep Sabbath so a few other things.

@@royaltm3420 I can relate in a lot of ways. My husband and I we tend to 'church hop', but never seen to find much fulfilment in a standard church setting. But it seems naturally we have been forming a more organic church you could say. 1.5 yrs covering that's amazing! I have been covering almost full time for the past month or so now. I noticed the more I started outside of just room prayer sessions I genuinely feel more 'protected' and less 'competitive' with other females if that makes sense. It helps too with my anxiety maybe you can relate with this.

@@allthingsthroughhim3856 I definitely can relate! My daughter is a teen and her anxiety heightens when she worries about her appearance. Covering truly can help us in so many practical ways, if we let it. I was nvr huge on make up, but I started not wearing it this year and same results honestly. I feel way more at peace with my own natural appearance! I don't even think about it now.

Just don't give up Sabbath keeping, for the Sabbath is the only day God blessed and sanctified. And has never been changed by God nor Jesus nor by his Disciples, only by man.

I go to the catholic Church and on the Latin Mass we veil. White for single women. Black for married or widows

I was so sceptical, now I am happy I saw it.. "It doesn't contradict logic, it supplements it." Praise god who surpasses all reasoning. Wow .😮

I think as feminism grew it because a symbol of shame. But we should be proud of our submission.

​​​​A man to have long hair is a shame. For a woman to have short hair or her head shaved was a shame. It is also an abomination for a woman to dress like a man, and a man to dress like a woman. It's all about keeping the outward distinction between men and women. The whole headcovering was for the women (to keep their hair long) to not appear as men; and to cover their heads if their hair was short or they were bald for some unfortunate reason. People have mixed in their own ideas and come up with this head covering "culture".

Ignoring and it's consequence started at Genesis 3.Enemy is deceiver ..God will reveal truth only to those who love the truth.God showed me that this is needed.

What impressed you?

Hmm... I read one of his books and was NOT impressed.

You make a good point which I have found in discussing this topic most people cannot give a good answer. But let me see if I can try to answer your inquiry. Some say that Paul is claiming that women are to wear a hat ONLY while praying and prophesying and the opposite for men, which is not true. Paul was simply mentioning them as examples. The point is that it looks bad that a woman whose head is not covered in LONG hair. There is no noun used that one can point to and interpret a hat or a veil. It just says that it ought to be covered. Men have misinterpreted this part to mean a veil or hat. Paul clearly is saying in verse 13 when asking us to make a judgement that if it looks "comely"(pleasing in appearance) if a woman is praying while being uncovered. So How does the lack of a veil make a woman not look pleasing? It doesn't if we are interpreting uncovered to mean to be without a veil or hat. But if uncovered means short hair then of course a short-haired woman looks uncomely especially if she were to do something LIKE praying or prophesying. If the wearing of a veil is relegated to worship time which some people like to interpret praying and prophesying to mean then why mention that the reason why a women or men ought to be covered or uncovered due to the order of creation. Why say that men should not be covered because he is the image and glory of God? Sounds like he shouldn't be covered at any time. Why mention that the reason a woman should be covered is because of the angels? Why does Paul only use the word praying and not praying and prophesying in verse 13? Why? because Paul is saying that covered mean to be covered in LONG hair and uncovered means to have short hair (not bald) and that because of these reasons men ought to keep their hair short and women long.

Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}

Keep covering and I’d they ask, share the verses. Some people are very adept at arguing- even if they are in error. You might want to look into some books. Glories Seen and Unseen is a good one. Also, look up “the head covering movement” website as there is a lot of good information out there. God bless you.

You are convicted (by God's Spirit), so that is where it ends. 🙂 Cover your head, worship, and if anyone asks, explain simply and confidently. It is between you and God. You are not disrupting a church service... you are just covering your hair. You are not insisting everyone else does it... you are obeying what God has put on your heart. If God tells you to do a thing, and it doesn't involve anyone else, then it doesn't involve anyone else: you don't need to ask permission to obey God! I will be praying for you. You are loved. 😊❤✝️

I don’t think you need to bring it up with your pastor unless you specifically want to discuss it with them? Just do your thing and if they ask you about it you can tell them that you felt God was calling you to do it

Prayed for you!

@@Floweroftheprairie2720 thank you soooo much Sister🥰💗

Does want you to cover HIS handiwork? Or is there is a context to these passages?

@@barbiebojorqez1112 Our feelings do not decide truth.

Will be praying but please don't worry about it as it is not a vital thing.

I was wondering what happened to my comments.

Wow. May I ask what type of church you grew up in?

Once I forgot my head covering and I started talking to God and immediately put my hand on top of my head to be in obedience. Never thought about using a tissue!

@@allthingsthroughhim3856 it was a non denominational in Minneapolis MN.

@@Goadenhomestead interesting. Thanks for sharing! Asking because you only really ever hear about it being enforced in an Amish and Mennonite setting in the West.

Well it's clear the term "long hair" is the covering for the woman, and "short hair", is not having a head covering for the man. V6 says "Shorn or Shaven" which means she is not covered if she does not have long hair. But naturally if her hair is not long then it might as well be cut short or completely shaven all off, both of which are a shame. In V. 14 he says that it is a shame for a man to have long hair "a covering". And V.15 that "long hair" for the woman is "a covering". It doesn't say "a hat" is a covering" or just "hair" it says "long hair is given to her for a covering". Context means something when you read scripture, and the context is clearly about long and short hair, not whether or not men and women should or should not wear hats in church, or when they pray. No where is hat, scarf, or any other material listed as a covering in these verses other than "long hair".

@@originaldanman Jeromel Villame Stated recently: "Paul is saying that nature itself teaches us that a woman's hair is her glory for her hair is given to her as a covering (Greek: perebolaion), but when she prays or prophesies she should cover (katakalupto) her covering (perebolaion), because if she won't cover (katakalupto) her head, then she should cut her covering (hair, perebolaion) short. But if it is shameful for her to cut her perebolaion (hair, covering) short, then let her head be covered (katakalupto). We cannot see the truth at first when reading English Bibles but the Greek words are different and they mean two different things (katakalupto and perebolaion). To God be the glory and honor. Amen." 1 Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If she has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut or shaved off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to shave his head each time before prayers, or of course be bald..

My question has always been.If a lady got in an accident or something She needed to be found/rescued.If she died would she go to hell for not covering her head!? Just curious! Does Followers Of The Way have a specific doctrine on head covering? Like does it have to be covered entirely or will a bandanna be acceptable?

Good question, hopefully someone replies

@@originaldanman you are exactly right

He talks about this in one of the other videos in this series. Hope this helps :)

It is for ALL women. And not only in public. It does not matter how people see it. Only how God fears it. If you only do it in public, it is equal to never doing it. Because then you fear men, not God.

I've started a playlist: kzfaq.info/sun/PLfTAgJQoq2oiJn_4n7l5dsGqzVSURGo7P

@@WholeBibleBelieverWoman it looks like the link is down. Are there any other lists that include all the teachings from this group about the headcovering?

@@220SouthlandAve Sorry, but since a couple years ago I have come to believe the Holy Spirit guided me not to wear the head covering except in situations that might call for it and have entirely lost interest in such sermons.

@@220SouthlandAve There are only three videos on this channel about the head covering, to my knowledge. I think this is the first one. To get the others, you could go to playlists on their channel, and there's a head covering one. Hope that helps!

Genuinely cool excerpt. Thanks!

That's a good question that many people ask. While the Bible does not give details about the appearance of the covering, I think there are a few common sense characteristics we can figure out. The covering ought to be simple and modest. It ought to be easily recognized as a religious covering, and not a fashion item. It ought to cover at least the top of the head, and not a small portion of it. Many people also find the covering ought to cover up most of the hair itself, and this is accomplished either by wearing a longer covering, or by tying up the hair under a shorter one. You can also do your own research about what different religious groups do as far as covering. I hope that helps.

I think your friend may be referring to Genesis 38:14-15 when Tamar “…put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.” And when Judah saw her he thought she was a prostitute “…because she had covered her face.” So it makes sense especially given that one would think that prostitutes would WANT to naturally cover their heads and faces so they are not easily recognized due to shame. You said Paul said that the woman wore a head covering to symbolize that her husband is the head of the wife. If you are referring to 1st Cor 11 then I would have to let you know that the KJV does not mention husband or wife it uses the words men and women therefore it would be erroneous to assume that Paul was referring only to married couples

Oneness sighting. Maybe they baptize according to Jesus very own commands.

@@richfrench288 Jesús commands to baptize in the name of three singular titles, father, son and Holy Spirit and the name of them is Jesus, this was revealed by the Holy Spirit to the apostles which is why all the babtizms in the book of acts were in the name of Jesus or the name of the Lord Jesus or the name of the Lord which is Jesus Christ the fullness of the God head Bodily, per scripture

You hear a lot of things like that, but that is not what Paul teaches.

Its not uncommon to hear something like this today. There are some videos in YT that claim it gives protection, some have called it a crown, and some say that it somehow brings to closer to God. Many others call it a journey for some reason putting up on some kind of pedestal that requires more attention than it deserves.

That’s what I was always told. But I think the world is still full of lust today just as much lust as it was back then. Personally my hair has been an issue of vanity. I think if this is a way that I can be modest and submissive I’m for it.

@@shanemccrea7085 Bless you. That's a good attitude, Sophie. It does not appear to be the main purpose of the covering according to this chapter, but it definitely expresses modesty very deeply, and hair is a cause of vanity for many women. There is great power in the headcovering.

that is reading that passage in context.... but... if God the Holy Spirit is leading to follow this... then do it....

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter If it meant short hair, we had a problem. This covering Paul adresses is one that can be removed. Good luck trying to do that with long hair. Like it or not, God's comamndments are not debatable.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter First off. We did not say the covering was exactly a veil. A hat or a towel would classify also. A commandment is a commandment. Hair is something women are born with. So they are not the covering Paul is mentioning.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Yes, Paul later said long hair were the glory of God, but that does not eliminate the importance of a physical covering. Your belief is very rooted in gnosticism. God bless

The passage plainly teaches the woman to cover, and plainly teaches the man not to cover. The hair is brought in as a comparison to support the point, showing that even nature covers the woman, just as is being taught here. This is an article I wrote, which began as a letter to a pastor who did not support covering: I wish to go over the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11 on the head covering for women, and its importance in the Church. In modern western Christianity, it is the norm for women to appear in the churches without a veil on their head. However, it was not until the mid-20th century that the bulk of Christians started allowing their women to worship uncovered, a time period also characterized by a distrust in the Bible, a growing feminist rebellion, and a flood of immodesty, lewdness, and divorce in the culture. I find it hard to believe that any Christian would think that the churches became enlightened regarding the headcovering in the mid-20th century, as they floated along with the cultural movement of women uncovering their heads. I am convinced, and so should you be, that what was going on was not an enlightenment in this period, but a turning away from the Light, which is the light of God. You can find collections of artwork, and later photography, throughout 2,000 years of Christian history, that show the Christian woman with her head covered, either in church or at other times. That documents what was the norm for pre-20th century Christians starting from the earliest era. Do you think it is good for Bible-believing churches to float along with a Western culture that dismisses the covering, or even hates it as a symbol of biblical patriarchy? Does not every church need to be rooted in Scripture, and willing to learn from its fathers and its history? Is the Christian headcovering a result of 2,000 years of ignorant saints who lacked in understanding? The respect for the woman’s head covering is found in an ordinary reading of the text of 1 Corinthians 11. The rejection of it, at least that which comes from Christians, is argued largely by the ambiguities present in this passage, and by a gross and obvious misreading of verse 15. Allow the normal reading to speak and it teaches what the early Church, and later saints and theologians also taught, including men who knew Greek extremely well - that a woman ought to cover her head during worship in church. Over time, this naturally intertwines with the teaching of modesty, as headcoverings are also an expression of modesty, so it has become a tradition for many to wear it all the time, and not merely in church. It applies the New Testament teachings of modesty, even if it is not commanded to be worn all the time. At the minimum, we saw Christian women covered in church for nearly all of history. Paul teaches that it is a dishonor to a woman to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered, just as it is a dishonor for a man to do so covered. He then instructs that the woman be covered, unless she desires to do something so shameful as to have her hair shorn off. He later goes on to teach that she “ought to” have a symbol of authority on her head (although interestingly “symbol” is not part of the Greek text). He then emphasizes that even nature gives us the same teaching he is giving as an apostle - by showing that it is shameful for a man to have long hair, but it is a glory for a woman. Nature agrees with God’s Word. If we left it at the ordinary instructions, there really is no doubt that this passage is teaching what the Greek-speaking early fathers of Christianity took it to mean - a woman should cover her head, at least during prayer and worship. Attempts to deny this teaching require ignoring what is plain in the words themselves, and going elsewhere for an answer. The most common religious objection is that Paul’s only talking about hair length. After all, in verse 15 he says nature gives long hair to a woman as a “covering”; therefore, hair is the covering he speaks of. . . Yet this is transparently wrong. The text does not say - I am only speaking of the covering of hair. The text does not say - a woman “ought to” have long hair when she prays. It simply makes a comparison with God’s law and nature, and shows that God’s law that a woman should be covered is AFFIRMED by nature, in that nature has also given her something around her head. It is clearly a COMPARISON to the covering in nature, as the statement begins, “Does not even nature itself teach . . . “ The language shows he is going from speaking of the covering to comparing it to something in nature which affirms its goodness. It would seem very strange for Paul to wait until verse 15 anyway, to make clear what he was speaking about, and not simply begin the teaching about hair, if that were the subject matter. Who would define what they talk about at the very end of a dialogue about it? We learn the subject in the beginning, which is headship represented in the covering. When that subject is brought up, no mention of hair exists, even though he mentions covering multiple times. It is quite oddball to expect someone to leave the subject ambiguous until the end of his point. Also, ask yourself if the average reader, taking in the words, “a man ought not to cover his head,” would actually think hair was the subject. Of course not. He would think you didn’t want him wearing a hat or something. Not only that, but as you probably know, the Greek word for “covering” in verse 15 is a DIFFERENT word than the Greek words uses earlier in the passage. When Paul speaks of being covered or uncovered regarding the man or woman, he uses katakalypto or akatakalyptos. This word can be found in the Septuagint and ancient Greek literature used in a way indicating an actual covering of the head. When he speaks of the woman’s hair being a covering from nature, he uses the Greek word paribolaion. This has a similar meaning, but tends to indicate something which wraps around. It is often used in reference to fine cloth or tunics in the Bible. It is related to a word that has to do with wrapping or surrounding. If these are two different Greek words, why claim that they are interchangeable? Why assume that the latter redefines the former? Moreover, to claim that the covering Paul speaks of is not an article of clothing, but is actually hair, fails if we apply it broadly and use it toward men. If men should pray uncovered, and a covering is really hair, then men just need to get a razor out every time they need to pray. They’d have to chop off their hair to be truly uncovered. But this makes no sense. Likewise, it makes no sense to believe Paul’s words apply to nothing but a woman’s long hair. A comparison is made to her hair, but that’s not the subject he speaks of. He speaks of a religious headcovering, worn on the head. That is what Christian women wore from the earliest documented era in Christian history. Wouldn’t it strike you as odd, brother, if men sat down in the sanctuary with hats on and worshipped that way? It should be equally odd, and disrespectful, for women to come into the sanctuary uncovered and worship that way. This passage presents truths that apply to both male AND female, and one cannot pay attention to one, and ignore the other. [Continued . . . ]

PART 2 of Article: It is also impossible to grieve the abandonment of male headship in marriage, and in the church, and not also grieve the abandonment of the woman’s covering. The woman’s covering represents that authority, that power the man has. This is explicitly stated in 1 Corinthians 11. He, as a representative of Christ, is also picturing Christ’s authority. That disrespect towards the man that comes from tossing out the headcovering is ALSO a disrespect towards Christ. Removing this symbol of man’s authority, as I mentioned earlier, came along with bold, open rebellion by women, and in society in general. It came along with disrespect for modesty, a biblical doctrine which is interrelated with the covering. I believe this one piece of cloth has great practical effect on our lives, brethren. It effects our walk in Christ in a good way, and that is understandable since God teaches the covering. It is a blessing to us all. When we lose it, we don’t just lose a “symbol” of authority, but we lose authority itself. It blesses the brethren for our women to wear it, for it to be taught in the churches, for its meaning to be understood. We often hear that Paul is merely speaking of culture, so we can’t treat it as God’s teaching which requires our obedience. We can accept or reject this teaching as culture. This is false. And imagine if we applied that kind of “cultural” logic elsewhere, and what damage it would do. Paul never says the covering is mere culture, and that it is value neutral. He simply teaches it as an apostle just like he teaches other things. The idea it is only culture has to be inserted in there. Not only that, but Paul emphasizes from the start that these are traditions that come from an apostle, and praises them for keeping other traditions. Paul places their source in apostolic teaching, and NOT in culture. (vs 2) He then connects the covering to biblical teaching and the divine order - God above Christ, Christ above man, man above woman. (vs. 3) That is divine truth, and not culture. It is divine truth clearly taught elsewhere in Holy Scripture. Moreover, you can go to artistic representations of the culture at that time, and you will see various religious depictions of pagan women worshipping not covered, but uncovered, as well as depictions of men worshipping covered. That means it’s impossible to claim that women at that time culturally all needed to be covered. Some will also argue that a woman does not need to cover because Paul tells them to be “shorn” if they cannot be covered. (vs. 6) However, Paul is pointing out that if she were not covered, she would need to do something as shameful as shearing her hair off. He is not teaching them it’s good to go about bald. He’s emphasizing the shamefulness of it. Imagine how odd it would read if Paul was only speaking of hair as a covering. The passage would be saying, if she does not have long hair let her have short hair, but if she does not have short hair, let it be long. Where is the sense in that? In fact, I think Christians throw this objection out simply to object to a teaching they don’t like. That’s because their response is not to have their women either be covered or bald, but simply to ignore the headcovering entirely - - and then proceed with whatever kind of hair they desire. It’s a false objection because they ignore what Paul actually says. They just don’t like the idea of wearing a piece of cloth that represents man’s authority. I also have to add than countless women will testify that wearing modest garb, and wearing plainly religious garb, makes much unwanted attention from men disappear. This is true for Christian women who begin to wear long dresses and cover their heads, and it is true for women who become Muslim and start wearing loose clothing and a head wrap. Men seem to immediately recognize the less sensual character of the women, and her religious dedication. She subsequently receives less approaches by men who desire her body, or wish to harass her. I even know a man - one who is standing for his marriage since his wife left him - who found himself in a similar situation. He had two women at work who were pursuing him. When he began to wear an Amish hat - although he is not Amish - their unwanted attention disappeared. They seemed to recognize intuitively the religious significance, and the holiness he had dedicated himself to. The same is true of women who wear the headcovering, along with modest apparel. The soul immediately recognizes the difference between the spirit and the flesh. It immediately sees that authority on her head. She is freer to live as a godly woman, and has less harassment and less temptation. That is the protection of the man around her, and the protection of God.

Hi Barbara. Of the commandments of Yah, there are some that are only for the priests, some only for men, some only for women, some only for farmers, and so on. The commands for the Aaronic priests to cover their heads was for temple service. The priestly garments are/were different from that of the garments for women, and were very specifically described by Yahweh. We don't see a command for men to cover when they came to bring offerings. There don't appear to be any specific requirements for the covering a woman is to wear. I believe that when Yah doesn't spell it out in detail, much is left to interpretation and personal conviction. I don't think it would be fair for anyone to tell women exactly how they should cover, but I personally feel that the scripture seems to indicate that the covering is to cover all of the hair, and it seems that that was the way it was always done throughout history. I don't claim to be an expert on anything and I definitely reserve the right to be wrong, just hope to help clear this up a bit for you. Blessings to you!

@@brookepenney8719 Thank you, Brooke. In modern times, I do believe that a pastor or any man teaching a group of people is doing the Father’s work just as the priest did and should be abiding by that rule as well. I agree with you on the head covering for women. Scripture is clear that if a woman is praying in a public setting or prophesying that their head should be covered. In Hebrew, prophesying can also mean teaching, as in children or other women. I personally think that women are perhaps a little more blessed if they also practice this in the privacy of their home. However, I do not believe that it is necessary for a woman to have her head covered all the time. Blessings to you.

@@SWDesert1535 Amein! I totally agree with you, Sister. Very well said. Blessings!

In my opinion, the Old Testament and New Testament were very different eras. Jesus bringing the new covenant changed the laws completely (see the Sermon on the Mount). This is only one of the many differences that we see for New Testament Christians to follow. For example, in the Old Testament, they killed their enemies. In the New Testament, Jesus said to love our enemies.

@@sophielee1493 Scripture tells us that our Heavenly Father does not change, He is the same today as He was in ancient times. Yeshua (Jesus) did not come to do away with the rules that Father set down for us to live by, He came to teach us a deeper meaning of what it means to follow His laws. If you read the history of why the people were told to kill their enemies, you would see that because of the breach in the covenant brought on by the angels that sinned in Genesis 6, the people were told to destroy the bad seed of the Nephilim. That’s why the flood happened. Yeshua didn’t change the covenant Father set down with His people, He renewed the covenant and completed it to its fullest. Just like we renew our “covenant” every year with the state to not drive a car without a license.

Why would God care for you to cover in order to worship him? It gives the appearance that you are not complete.

We don't have to know exactly why God "cares" but He does. That is why He teaches to cover in the Holy Bible. It pictures the headship of the man, which pictures the headship of Christ and God. It is very meaningful.

FA makes a great point. If one were to believe that a veil is what is being referred to here then one has to be constantly aware of what they do when one takes off a hat or veil when getting up or going to bed or taking a shower and so on. I don't think God was referring to a hat as if that would matter to him. The scriptures are saying that long hair is the covering not a foreign object. Time to be free from all religious misinterpretations and follow the Lord a little more perfectly.

@@defendingthegospel721 The idea of taking off and putting on fits the context very well, since it speaks of covering during worship, not at all times. It is the idea of hair that clashes with that context. It is the normal interpretation of the text which understands it to be a veil, since the words mean cover, or veil, and uncovered, or unveiled. Any ordinary person, if you told them to cover their head during services, would understand you mean a cloth or a cap. Not that they need to grow their hair any longer. Hair is mentioned by way of comparison, and that is why the language of comparison exists when bringing the topic in. The language of comparison is meaningless, and really absurd, if he has been talking about nothing but hair from the start.

@@holinessofthebride1935 I agree that if you tell someone to cover their head during services one would understand to mean some kind of headwear like a cap. But I would agree if one were to say that today but that is not necessarily what one would be thinking back then. Especially given the fact that the surrounding verses refer to hair in one way or another (shorn x2, shaven x1, long hair x2). Plus the fact that he preaches women ought to have their hair long and men short. So it makes sense to think that covering (which we already know to mean long hair in verse 15) that is mentioned in all the surrounding verses means long hair. And so to be uncovered would mean to have short hair. It is simple logic. One main problem that you mentioned is the IDEA that the bible mentions somehow that covering is something that has the properties to be taken off and put on. This is a misunderstanding of the scriptures. It does not directly say the covering is something that one puts on or takes off if we can be honest here for a moment. People assume it says that just because it says something about having the head covered while praying and prophesying therefore it must be conditional. To do this would be an assumption. Based on the context they were just two examples not conditions. Think with me for a moment IF there really were ONLY two conditions it would imply that ANY other condition should be true. Therefore, a woman CAN be WITHOUT a covering let’s say if she we casting out demons, interpreting tongues, etc. But most veil promoters do not want to mention this because it involves critical thinking and undeniable logic. It never states that covering the head was for some church service but for women to keep their hair long otherwise it would look even worse when they do something godly LIKE praying or prophesying.

He’s defending the arguments against head coverings. If you are looking for the explanation and reasoning it’s in the text of 1 Corinthians 11.

He does several other teachings on the topic, which may be simpler. He's dealing with some broad topics in this one.

I understand. It's not easy. I went over covering with my wife from Scripture, and she began covering for worship several years ago. It wasn't easy for her, because at that time we attended a church where no one covered. Now we attend one in which all the women cover. Seek honor before God, and not before men, and realize the awesome meaning God has in it for you.

Romans 12:2 (KJV) And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Simply obey God (not some group or sect). Feelings are not a good source for obtaining the truth. 1st Corinthians 11 refers much about hair unfortunately too many people have made it seem that it is referring to a hat or veil. Does God really care about a hat? Given the context of the passages doesn't it seem more likely that he wants women to maintain their hair long? As we can read in verse 15? Does covering have to mean an object separate from the body? or can it mean hair which also has the properties of covering the head? People may point out the praying and prophesying part but those were just examples not conditions because if they were conditions then the opposite would be true in that in any other condition a woman does not need to wear a veil. But some might not like that obvious logic and claim it should be worn most of the time, but if that were the case then why would they mention there are two conditions. God wants us to learn that women maintain their hair long and men's short otherwise it wouldn;t look right.

​@@robertmiller812 One does not define what one is talking about at the end of a discussion. No. Verse 15 is introduced the previous verse with language of comparison, which would be nonsensical if it were the exact same thing he's been talking about all along. Plus verse 15 uses a different word for covering than used previously. Paul is only showing that even nature affirms the teaching which he is giving. It is not a "sect" which teaches the head covering, but the covering reflects the normal reading of the Greek text, and also reflects nearly all of Christian history from the earliest documented age. You need to consider you're the one in a sect. The headcovering is normative for Christian women, according to Scripture.

@@holinessofthebride1935 “One does not define what one is talking about at the end of a discussion.” Well, I didn’t know you were sentence police. The written word is not based on what you consider to be the rule. There is nothing wrong to expound something more thoroughly later in a discussion. But what’s worse is that you make it seem as though a huge paragraph was made when it was only a couple of sentences. The fact the word in Greek is different from the other words makes no difference it doesn’t make a major difference. Whereas you probably see the word veil when there is no word there like that. Long hair can cover the head therefore there is no need to imagine or suppose they are referring to a hat or veil. Covering is not exclusive to a foreign object hair fits very well here. The Greek word for covered or uncovered in the other verses is not a noun as you may seem to view it. Lastly mentioning “Christian history” depends on who you WANT to focus on. Amway history is not on the same level as Scripture, if this is your view of what it takes to prove a point then you will be in the same company as Catholics who have an extremely long history of following bad doctrine but as long as there is “history” that’s all that matters right? Your logic is very flawed and doesn’t stand up to the Scriptures. I say this in all sincerity ask God and he will reveal the truth to you.

Unfortunately Elizabeth Elliot did not believe it was for today.

Who cares. You gotta be famous to be worth emulating? My grandma was ten times the woman any of them were. But she didnt have s publicist so she didnt make your list. But she did wear a headcovering so I guess shes not cool to you

Interesting that he quoted from them, but still doesn't change the correct doctrinal practice.

On judgment day they won’t be stood with you

You're not alone don't give up. You don't know whom you may be influencing. My wife has been wearing a head covering for months now. She is the only one in our church. She is not going to give up. It's made a big difference in our relationship.

Only because you are the only one doing it, does not mean you should not do it. Think about how God sees it. wrong and right are not decided by society.

I can understand. I just purchased a veil, and I will be the only one wearing one at my church. Maybe it will inspire others to join in... maybe not. It does have me feeling a little unsure even though it's something I really want to do. Try again with me.

@@bricat5798 What matters is that you do it, regardless whether anyone else does it at your church or not.

@@bricat5798 And I agree, it should lead the way. My wife always wear a scarf now after she met Michelle Curtis, she was inspired by her example, and she lead other women in our churches to that path too.

What I understood was that head coverings for men during that time was normal, which is why it was counter-cultural for men to uncover their heads.

@@sophielee1493 that made sense! Thank you!

@@christopherandamandasmith6595 no problem!

the scripture tells us to pray unceasingly ,,, so do you spontaneous pray throughout the day?

Only for during the Christians meeting.

Daughter Of The King only when you are in the official church meetings

M G That have nothing to do with covering praying is personal and should not be an act of showing. Covering is an act within the Christian meetings for Christians

Carl Edwards No is not. That was teaching for assembly meetings not for personnel devotion.

I don’t think it’s very Christlike to refer to human beings as ”it”, as if they were objects.

The English language is a funny language. Boats get the pronoun “she” sometimes. I think Ernest Hemingway wrote with those pronouns personifying in his story about a fisherman. And then… It. Is singular. You could say the formal “one,” as in, “one must not,” but this refers to a non specific person in most contexts. But it certainly refers to a person. “One.” Then you have the trouble with those who want plural pronouns because they feel there are multiple persons within them. (See Mark 5:9.) “It” may seem dehumanizing… either it only seems that way and isn’t, or it’s because they (the group requesting unique pronouns) actually are dehumanizing themselves by rejecting the fundamental aspects that make each person who he or she is. God made mankind of two flavours: male and female! If one is neither, such as claiming non binary status, then they are contradicting God, who made mankind a binary of two biological flavours: male and female. Bible says God cannot lie in Titus 1:2. Bible also says to let God be true and everyone else a liar, meaning, when we differ from God, God isn’t wrong but we are wrong. Make sense? Overall: you may like the formal singular pronoun “one”, and you may want to challenge the idea that one can choose one’s own pronouns since each person is born either male or female, and God has chosen our lot in life with His sovereignty over EVERY aspect of creation; By denying that each of us were created either male or female and attempting to define one’s own sex and gender and pronouns, one finds oneself on shifting and sinking sands, confused and self-contradictory. Better? Have a beautiful day, whoever you are!

No

Yes. End of story

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. 1 Corinthians 11:4-5

Amen. I am so glad to hear someone say this. I would add that most people who follow this idea of veils should check their Bibles if they are reading from a modern version that adds words like veil, cloth, assembly, symbol of authority, husband, wife as such words you won't find in the King James version in 1st Corinthians 11. These words complicate and changes the meanings to Paul's preaching which was simply a quick preaching on hair length. Instead some have been misled and allowed misinterpretations to dictate their beliefs and have caused it to become a thorn and a burden that should never have existed in the first place.

Boston

I'm in ohio

I went to change spelling sorry. Wearing shorts is way less Christian dress to me than a head covering. I am trying to keep an open mind and heart. Maybe I am too critical

Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling, then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald........{;o;}

Me too

The Levitical priests were required to wear some kind of head covering. The issue here is the interpretation of the word covering. If one were to read 1 Corinthians 11 and read covering to mean long hair and uncovered to mean short hair then the passage would make more sense. It flows with the rest of the verses that mention long hair and the words shorn or shaven.

First I encourage you to read and study the entire Bible - all the way through. Second I encourage you to bring your questions directly to God. Third I encourage you to get confirmation from the Holy Ghost on what I am about to explain - Men covered their heads in the OT when they mourned or were ashamed. Both which the Levites should have felt when they were ministering to the Lord. Mourning sin…theirs and others…ashamed because of sin..theirs and others.

Well not all men wore a hat if you read in the OT it was the priests who had to wear something on their heads. Today some have misconstrued the verses in 1st Corinthians 11 that men are not to wear a hat of some kind but the Levites had already been doing that. The real issue is if "to be covered" or uncovered means a type of headwear. But given that most of the verses revolve around hair it is referring to not being covered in long hair and similarly women ought not to be uncovered which is another way of saying they should not have short hair.

DOH! Better cover that, lest you be boasting! I'm kidding. This whole headcovering culture is just a mixup by those who don't understand what they read.

What is your church?

My understanding is that you should always obey God rather than your husband if there is a conflict between the two. In this situation, if she wants to avoid conflict with her husband I would suggest she could use headcoverings that look more ”normal” (like some type of beanie that is trendy at the moment for example), that people wouldn’t react to

I would explain her reason for wanting to do it to her husband as best she can. Pray that her understands and approves. However, while her husband does have authority over her in marriage, the Lord has the higher authority still, and it may be necessary to cover even if the husband does not want it. I would hope at the minimum he would not oppose it.

Thank you for your comments. This is helpful instruction. I’m grateful when I approached my husband at one time, he was happy to see me follow God’s leading even though he didn’t really understand, he gave a blessing and now he doesn’t even blink an eye at it! Not all women have that. Thank you for your input! Shalom

How can you obey God by disobeying your husband? You can’t. So you should pray to God and ask HIM to move your husband and focus on being a 1 Peter 3 wife - which says without a word we will win over our disobedient husband as they watch how we live godly lives. Got tells us wives to submit to our husbands in ALL things.

A wife obeys her husband in ALL THINGS excluding sin. She is not obliged to go against God because her husband demands it. That is obedience to God first and foremost, and not disobedience to man. The same thing goes for a government. One does not need to sin because a magistrate demands it. It's a tough subject, I know.

You are right that Paul bases this argument on creation so how it is that a veil would apply? If the reasons for a woman to cover her head is found in the order of creation as so noted in verses 8 and 9, then how can one claim to use it as evidence to wear a MANUFACTURED veil or hat? It should be obvious that it had to be something natural like hair. Therefore an uncovered woman is a woman who is not covered in long hair, therefore the passage has more to do with being covered with long hair or not covered in long hair (aka short hair)

@@defendingthegospel721 I know of several teachers that believe this. This not my conviction on the subject. 1 the head covering is a sign of her husband's authority over her and because of the Angels ( I won't even begin to say I understand that part) I personally end up in the same place RC Sproul did.

@@wgterry73ify I don't doubt that we would find several teachers that will claim the head covering to be hair and veils. I have seen other pastors that believe that head covering is long hair so it isn't my conviction either. Though I am a bit confused as to why you mentioned a husband's authority? If you read from the KJV there is no mention of husbands or wives in fact one reads it as to mean all people which would make sense since we were talking about this being tied to creation which includes everyone and not just those married.

Got em!

William Brewer veil and silence are both going together. Sisters cannot cover themselves hiding and trying to talk that would make no sense if they cover they should be silence

@@josephrobi6806 the women are commanded to be silent in the churches. They are also commanded to pray being covered. Any prayers in the meeting would need to be silent.

William Brewer Don’t forget Paul reprimand was First the covering and later 1 Corinthians 14 he reprimanded the talk from sisters. Both the veil was not practice correctly and sisters talking was supposed keep silence in the church.

Paul was not an effective leader, among women. He silenced half the CHURCH. There are roles in every Church -- Deacon, Teacher, Healer -- that do not involve merely warming the pew seat and remaining silent. Such hatred of women is not justified.

Where dose Jesus Christ sit in heaven, at the right hand of the Father, Jesus is God he has the same Authority as the Father, Jesus is the Fathers son, and to get to the Father is Jesus Christ this is the only way, that’s why we say in the name of the Father the Son and Holy Spirit they are 3 spirits in one, the Father is the head of Jesus and Jesus is the head of man and man is the head of the woman and the woman covers her head in obedience to this teaching, hope that helps ❤

God the Father did not want us to go to hell and that’s where we was all going because us as humans are selfish and don’t obey his law, so to save us from hell, he chose mother Mary to have a son who would die for us as the wages of sin is death, so God the Father is on the throne, he sent his spirit to put his spirit into Mary a son is born through Mary and then Jesus naturally became the Fathers son, even though it is God in the flesh, people was making up what they wanted out of scripture and God the Father was not having this no more, so God in the flesh Jesus Christ told us the right way of these teachings and how we are to live by them, God in the flesh Jesus Christ is sinless and did not deserve death but he stood in your place and took the punishment of your sins so you don’t die and go to hell, if you follow Jesus Christ and his teachings heaven will be your home but God is a just God and dose not force you to follow his son that is your choice where you want to go, but he did make a way for you so you can go to heaven and your spirit will live for eternity with him or you can be thrown into hell for eternity and it’s not a good place, the Holy Father demonstrates how much he loves us that he put Himself in human form and took our punishment because you mean so much to Him you are the apple of his eye and the Father thinks about you all the time because He is your Father he created you with love you was made for a purpose, you was designed by the creator, the only way to the Father is through the Son, have you looked up the gifts of the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God ❤

Jesus also called mother Mary woman because of scripture, Sam shoumon has a brilliant teachings on why Mary is Queen of heaven should take a look

@@jesusislord8895 The Greek is kephale... source... the Son comes from the Father. They are one. The woman comes from the man. As Adam said, "Bone if Mt bone, flesh of my flesh". As Jesus said "... no longer two but one". Mark 10

@@Bible33AD you asked a question, I didn’t ask a question, I just thought I’d let you know what he means, God bless

@Jesus Is Lord "Covering" can be more than "long hair." I believe, it is culturally determined. Sikh turbans, Orthodox veils, caps and scarves are utilized by communities and sects to show women's compliance with the concept of God's "headship."

@Carl Edwards Makes sense. But having little girls have to wear coverings, doesn't make sense to me. Their hair ought to be free to blow in the wind.

@Carl Edwards I agree; however, if you look at the Christian FAMILY Communes -- Quaker, Mennonite, Amish, Bruderhof, 12Tribes -- you notice the females have coverings birth-to-death. THAT's suppression.

@Carl Edwards Communes are much more attuned to the Teachings of Jesus THAN ANY Sunday-go-to-Meeting mainstream denomination. Dismissing communes as "cults" discounts the entire concept of Brotherhood and Living-by-One-Purse. In Ancient times, the Lyran system and Essenes in Judaism were brotherhoods WHO FOLLOW PRINCIPLES of behavior that are UN-worldly, based on Godly behavioral principles. These are not to ridicule or even deny. They have a place in society -- SANCTITY in belief and practice.

@Carl Edwards Neither do the Hutterites, Mennonites, TwelveTribes or Bruderhoff have a problem employing technologies in business. It's a matter of the preferences each community CHOOSES as a consensus-led or prophet-led group. www.amazon.com/gp/product/1449984908/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1 ... Take Life's Water Free. At one time, I penned an adaptation of the Benedictine model of community, in favor of families.

Do you see the head covering as dishonoring? We are not talking about an entire covering of the hair like Muslims and nuns do. It ain't got nothing to do with technology. We don't agree with the Amish's views on technology. However, they are right on the head covering.

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. 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 No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. -(no Old Testament reference available) 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. 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. Also, if a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before she can communicate with God, that would make the fabric covering an idol. But one could also say it was a talisman I suppose, since a talisman could be an article of clothing. There is also an essay by 'FA'. It's about a 5 minute read. The full essay is available if requested. Excerpt here of post by FA: If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? " If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing?

We didn't debate about Christ's hair length. That was never the issue. But we do not agree with the Islamic version of head covering. A hijab is something where no hair are visible. That's not biblical. We simply mean a veil or a hat as a symbolic covering. Any woman praying uncovered is naked. End of story.

Jesus was a NAZARENE - a person from Nazareth. NOT. A nazarite - one who never cuts their hair. They are not the same and Jesus did not have long hair.

Our pastor spoke on 1 Cor. 11: 1-16 last Sunday, and brought out that it is speaking of a hierarchy of authority, nothing about superiority. God and Christ are equal, but there is an order of authority. Jesus was all about doing His Father's will. Men and women are equally God's children and valuable, but there is a hierarchy of authority. It's just something that makes the world work better.

That's like saying, If man is the head of woman, she is not human.

Yes ESS vs EFS vs complete equality. I too side with complete equality in the trinity.

@@viviant4777 No, it would mean "If man is the head of woman, she is not man"

Yes, because God here clearly refers to the Father, and Christ is not the Father. This has no bearing on the deity of the Son.

That sounds like gnosticism. Yes, there are spiritual things, however, that does not mean physical ones are of no value. Maybe the cross Christ died on was merely spiritual too according to your logic?

Obedience to God is not slavery. We ought to love to do His will.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter The covering is something which covers the head apart from hair. You are deeply mistaken. Paul compares the covering to hair, but does not say it is the same. Somehow you think the entire early Church didn't know their Greek as far as wheat a covering means?

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter There is logic here because hair can also cover the head. History is irrelevant if it doesn't match the Word of God.

The Bible says we are a slave to Christ or a slave to this world. One could say the sexual revolution liberated women or one could see the truth that they traded one form of slavery for another. As a woman, without following God’s law, it opens me up to the spirits that seek to enslave me to the bondage of fashion and beauty. The latter is more initially alluring (that is exactly how Satan operates), but his venomous bite that comes with age is far worse than any supposed freedom of not following God’s wisdom. And that is what God’s law is WISDOM. Every young woman will get old and fade and face the same reality. The sooner a woman faces it and realizes her life and value are more than her appearance, the richer and more full of life she can have. That is also why God says don’t let your adorning be external but let it be a quiet and gentle spirit. Our spirit is what will endure. So we should invest everything in that.