At the time of prayer a Christian man must not cover his head , while a Christian woman must cover her head in order to respect , proclaim , make visible the " Divine Order of Authority " that's what Apostle Paul described in 1st Corinthians 11verse 3 by writing the following : " But I want you to understand this : the head of every man is Christ , the head of every woman is man , and the head of Christ is God " ; in other words : God (first) , (then) Jesus Christ, (then) man , (then) woman . More , a Christian woman must cover her head because of that very important "Because of Angels" written by Apostle Paul in 1st Corinthians 11 verse 10 .

Like at time of Apostle Paul , the "Divine Order of Authority" described in 1st Corinthians 11verse 3 is still the same today , and God's Angels still exist today ; so , the "Divine Order of Authority " and that "Because of Angels" of 1st Corinthians 11verse 10 are two important and timeless reasons for which Christian woman veiling is still in use today at the time of prayer .

The President of The Internet Who is the author of scripture?

@@justchilling704 I see what you are saying and I think we all agree that the Holy Spirit used men to write the Scriptures but that doesn't mean that Paul or any other writer fell into a trance or spaced out while doing so. Or that their hand just started writing without their mind and spirit being involved as well. That's why we can see different styles of writing amongst all of the NT books.

@@Solomonsaysno I never said it did, I agree bro.

1 Corinthians 11:1-16 KJV 11 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 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. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That they are wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. If there where only two exclusive moments then one should have no problem if an “unveiled” woman speaks in tongues, interprets tongues, heals the sick, casts out devils, etc., right? Following such logic it stands to reason that the other instances that I mentioned should be acceptable WITHOUT a veil, right? Now should they say NO, then they should admit that there may be more instances; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, to be false. Please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that EXPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. People ASSUME this because they are misreading scripture. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in long hair. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real life scenario. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Did people really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? I am not saying this to be funny, but people have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved. Given that this comparison seems illogical one should consider that someone may be reading it wrong. For if “uncovered” means “short hair” then it fits the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair) then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved, since it is already short. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven than to being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman is somehow equal to being shaved. Please don’t dismiss this logic think about it for a minute. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women as well as headship. Bit as far as the physical head is concerned the question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say all of the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation. If we are to make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them without having to start studying Greek. 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 “covering” really meant a veil or to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up into the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying? Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil is missing and that it doesn’t look right? Someone needs to explain this logically. Again, don’t dismiss this think about it. Be honest, does looking at a woman doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying, that would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on such a woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong by OBSERING a woman’s head to be uncovered (having short hair) while praying and a man being covered (having long hair). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head “COVERED” in this verse refers to “LONG HAIR. ” I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is being exclusive to two actions instead of seeing them as two examples. As stated before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off, ESPECIALLY in this verse, as it offers no examples or “supposed” exclusive conditions. In this instance it is to be understood that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I have seen too many times people getting stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seems like some kind of headwear but do not take into consideration all the other verses that show that the “covering” means long hair and that the word “uncovered” is to mean short hair. Also, please keep in mind that there are various sections that would not make sense if you try to force the idea of veils. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?

Not as of yet, but thank you for reminding me.

Thank you for your reply. I am afraid I don't have the full sermon but I imagine it would be available somewhere.

@@biblicalbroadcasting2639 There are MANY reasons why women should cover. Reach out to one of your PIOUS Muslim cousins and learn what they're taught. Nouman Khan and MUFTI Menke have been the two speakers I've touched that I feel relate BEST on a LARGE scale. I was KJV, TLB and www.submission.org translation was best fit to MY SPIRIT. I only know English. I touched kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aseBp7ynr9-VpWQ.html not long before touching your video. Additional assist: Quaker reading QURAN kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ar-liq19xqi3qIU.html ALLAH in kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kLSXl9SYydunZ4U.html the Bible. *PLEASE share this **kzfaq.info/get/bejne/prd3YNJ6srnGk6M.html** far and wide, especially within military communities and the Bible belt.* 1) (2:177) 📌 *Righteousness is not turning your faces towards the east or the west.* Righteous are those who believe in GOD, the Last Day, the angels, the scripture, and the prophets; and they give the money, cheerfully, to the relatives, the orphans, the needy, the traveling alien, the beggars, and to free the slaves;🗃📣📡 and they observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat); and they keep their word whenever they make a promise; and they steadfastly persevere in the face of persecution, hardship, and war. These are the truthful; these are the righteous. www.submission.org ⚡🗃⚡ *Followers of Jesus and Odin have different contact prayers than Muhammad's do. 🐍😎🐍 2) www.submission.org Appendix 33 😵 1. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have been corrupted beyond recognition. 😵 [31:6] Among the people, there are those who uphold baseless Hadith, and thus divert others from the path of GOD without knowledge, and take it in vain. These have incurred a shameful retribution. www.submission.org 📌 QURAN alone kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d8uUltmSstbMoGQ.html 📍 Secret inside your cell kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jdNmbMycxLfIkmw.html phone.

@@BestIsntEasy Islam is of the devil. This false religion teaches a false Christ and a false gospel. If you are a Bible-believing Christian you should have nothing to do with it.

@@biblicalbroadcasting2639 exactly.

The 'covering' is the hair. A woman must be covered with her long hair. There are many scriptures.

the major issue is that some have made a distinction between the words "covering" and "long hair" when it seems like they are both the same. So if a woman is to cover her head and long hair is the covering then isn't it logical to understand that Paul is saying that the woman is to cover her head in long hair? The counterargument to that is the fact it states that a woman is to cover her head while praying and prophesying and that men are to do the opposite. So there is a false "appearance" that such things were to be done only under two conditions. But that is not what we read. It doesn't say the word "only" and when we read further it says another reason men shouldn't cover their heads is because he is the "image and glory of God" so there goes the two-conditional argument. One assumes that there are two conditions when one can easily argue that Paul was giving just two examples. In that it would look off if a woman doing something holy LIKE praying and prophesying while having such a short haircut and the same can be said for the man with long hair. Logic also dictates that if a woman must wear a cloth covering based on two conditions then doesn't that imply that she CAN be without it if she were to do something else like say cast out demons, talk in tongues, or interpret tongues etc. This head covering doctrine fails once one put things into logical perspective.

I think he would want you to read his Word and follow it. That would mean avoiding man's interpretations which we now have today for so many doctrines including this one.

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That they are wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. If there where only two exclusive moments then one should have no problem if an “unveiled” woman speaks in tongues, interprets tongues, heals the sick, casts out devils, etc., right? Following such logic it stands to reason that the other instances that I mentioned should be acceptable WITHOUT a veil, right? Now should they say NO, then they should admit that there may be more instances; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, to be false. Please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that EXPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. People ASSUME this because they are misreading scripture. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in long hair. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real life scenario. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Did people really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? I am not saying this to be funny, but people have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved. Given that this comparison seems illogical one should consider that someone may be reading it wrong. For if “uncovered” means “short hair” then it fits the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair) then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved, since it is already short. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven than to being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman is somehow equal to being shaved. Please don’t dismiss this logic think about it for a minute. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women as well as headship. Bit as far as the physical head is concerned the question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say all of the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation. If we are to make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them without having to start studying Greek. 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 “covering” really meant a veil or to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up into the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying? Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil is missing and that it doesn’t look right? Someone needs to explain this logically. Again, don’t dismiss this think about it. Be honest, does looking at a woman doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying, that would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on such a woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong by OBSERING a woman’s head to be uncovered (having short hair) while praying and a man being covered (having long hair). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head “COVERED” in this verse refers to “LONG HAIR. ” I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is being exclusive to two actions instead of seeing them as two examples. As stated before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off, ESPECIALLY in this verse, as it offers no examples or “supposed” exclusive conditions. In this instance it is to be understood that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I have seen too many times people getting stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seems like some kind of headwear but do not take into consideration all the other verses that show that the “covering” means long hair and that the word “uncovered” is to mean short hair. Also, please keep in mind that there are various sections that would not make sense if you try to force the idea of veils. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?

To some extent, this is true unless the teacher has misinterpreted the message from God.

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That they are wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. If there where only two exclusive moments then one should have no problem if an “unveiled” woman speaks in tongues, interprets tongues, heals the sick, casts out devils, etc., right? Following such logic it stands to reason that the other instances that I mentioned should be acceptable WITHOUT a veil, right? Now should they say NO, then they should admit that there may be more instances; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, to be false. Please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that EXPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. People ASSUME this because they are misreading scripture. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in long hair. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real life scenario. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Did people really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? I am not saying this to be funny, but people have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved. Given that this comparison seems illogical one should consider that someone may be reading it wrong. For if “uncovered” means “short hair” then it fits the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair) then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved, since it is already short. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven than to being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman is somehow equal to being shaved. Please don’t dismiss this logic think about it for a minute. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women as well as headship. Bit as far as the physical head is concerned the question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say all of the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation. If we are to make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them without having to start studying Greek. 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 “covering” really meant a veil or to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up into the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying? Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil is missing and that it doesn’t look right? Someone needs to explain this logically. Again, don’t dismiss this think about it. Be honest, does looking at a woman doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying, that would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on such a woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong by OBSERING a woman’s head to be uncovered (having short hair) while praying and a man being covered (having long hair). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head “COVERED” in this verse refers to “LONG HAIR. ” I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is being exclusive to two actions instead of seeing them as two examples. As stated before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off, ESPECIALLY in this verse, as it offers no examples or “supposed” exclusive conditions. In this instance it is to be understood that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I have seen too many times people getting stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seems like some kind of headwear but do not take into consideration all the other verses that show that the “covering” means long hair and that the word “uncovered” is to mean short hair. Also, please keep in mind that there are various sections that would not make sense if you try to force the idea of veils. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?

Rather ignorant statement to say some utterly refuse to comply. Some just read the entire chapter all the way down to where it tells us that our hair is our covering which is why we are to have long hair.

@@kelleym7623 The issue at Corinth was not whether long or short hair was an acceptable covering, but whether or not the head was covered with a veil or hat. This is proven by the following: ----"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head" (v. 4). The distinction here is obviously not between short and long-haired brethren, but rather between men with covered and uncovered heads. ---- Contentious sisters were provided with an alter­ native: either cover the head or be shorn or shaven ( v. 6). But if long hair were the intended covering, then the Apostle's alternative is meaningless. "Cover" ( -ed, -ing) in the A.V. disguises the fact that different words for "to cover" are used in the Greek text. The distinction between two of these, "katakalupto" and "peribolaion" proves that a veil or head covering, and not long hair is intended. These words are as follows: --- "Katakalupto" ( 'kata' = 'fully'; 'kalupto' = 'to cover up'), "to cover fully" ( Yg). This word occurs through­ out verses 5- 13 and is translated "veil" in the R.S.V.; Nestle and Marshall's "Interlinear Greek-English New Testament'' and many other versions. These translations make it plain that the issue relates to a head covering, not the growth of hair, long or short. -----"Peribolaion" ('peri' = 'around'; 'ballo' = 'to throw, cast'), "something cast around" ( Y g). The long hair of a woman is her glory - like a mantle cast around ( v. 15) .(8) But this is not to be displayed in the assembly of believers before the presence of God. The intended covering in the church meeting is the "katakalupto" ---- the head covering or veil. Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald. See...kzfaq.info/get/bejne/pNd1pJCZ3qqRnnU.html

They must cover their heads ALWAYS, remember that the calling to cover their heads is for 3 reasons. Prayer, recognition by angels and in submission to their husbands.

@@TheRealThanos55 can you elaborate on why they should cover it always ? And another question, did christian women historically cover their heads all day long ? Thanks ! ^^

Well, I don't think you'll find a verse that one can point to that states that women "...must cover their heads while praying for protection against principalities and powers..." Despite some NEWER translations the Bible also does not say the words Husbands or wives. Neither would it make sense if we replace the word Man with husband. If we did that for verse 3 then isn't it implied that the single men are not included here? Wouldn't it also imply that single men CAN pray and prophesy with their heads covered in verse 4? Wouldn't "man" be the appropriate understanding here since all men (not all husbands) were made in the image of God? Also, verse 8 since it is clearly referring to order or their creation not about marital status. In regards to the covering, there is another misinterpretation going around assuming the word cover means a veil or hat when it means long hair allow me to explain below.

Those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5: “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.” Those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, that they are wrong for failing to wear it & assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. Some also include angels as the reason but for the purpose of this, I'll stick to the common argument of the aforementioned two. If there where only two exclusive moments then one should have no problem if an “unveiled” woman speaks in tongues, interprets tongues, heals the sick, casts out devils, etc., right? Following such logic it stands to reason that the other instances that I mentioned should be acceptable WITHOUT a veil, right? Now should they say NO, then they should admit that there may be more instances; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, to be false. Please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that EXPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. People ASSUME this because they are misreading scripture. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in long hair. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real life scenario. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Did people really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? I am not saying this to be funny, but people have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved. Given that this comparison seems illogical one should consider that someone may be reading it wrong. For if “uncovered” means “short hair” then it fits the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair) then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved, since it is already short. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven than to being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman is somehow equal to being shaved. Please don’t dismiss this logic think about it for a minute. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women as well as headship. Bit as far as the physical head is concerned the question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say all of the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation. If we are to make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them without having to start studying Greek. 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 “covering” really meant a veil or to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up into the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying? Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil is missing and that it doesn’t look right? Someone needs to explain this logically. Again, don’t dismiss this think about it. Be honest, does looking at a woman doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying, that would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on such a woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong by OBSERING a woman’s head to be uncovered (having short hair) while praying and a man being covered (having long hair). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head “COVERED” in this verse refers to “LONG HAIR. ” I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is being exclusive to two actions instead of seeing them as two examples. As stated before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off, ESPECIALLY in this verse, as it offers no examples or “supposed” exclusive conditions. In this instance it is to be understood that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I have seen too many times people getting stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seems like some kind of headwear but do not take into consideration all the other verses that show that the “covering” means long hair and that the word “uncovered” is to mean short hair. Also, please keep in mind that there are various sections that would not make sense if you try to force the idea of veils. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?

@@user-jy5qm8nc9mInthe early church they considered a head covering as part of the “modesty” of a woman. So yes it was done outside the church and it’s not even a dispute. You can look at the dozens of quotes onlins

@Mary Gibilisco but they say they get the teachings from the Bible why can't they agree?

minisight2000 the Bible says you can’t lose your salvation. But the flip side of that is the foundation of God is sure having this seal, let everyone that names the name of Christ depart from iniquity. So here we see those that are saved do not practice sin. They are eternally secure, but those that are saying they can’t lose their salvation but are practicing sin were never saved. Jesus will say he never knew them.

When it comes to the topic of head coverings I’ve never seen so many people make the point about how head coverings were a “cultural thing” or that the “historical evidence” shows that SOME women wore some kind of headwear for centuries and that due to certain social or cultural movements (like the feminist movement) people started to drift away from it. There are several videos online of lengthy discussions of as to how long women had been wearing something on their heads for centuries and then show how only recently women began to stop wearing them, usually because of an introduction of some evil. This is used to somehow show proof or credence to their beliefs that women ought to wear a veil or something. This is by no means a proof of any kind. One CANNOT use practices that were done by various peoples for various reasons, performed for various years as proof. If one has to resort to going outside the scope of the scriptures to prove their point then their evidence was likely very thin to begin with. Please note that Evidence that is OUTSIDE the confines of the Scriptures is NOT THE SAME LEVEL AS SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. Often cited are the facts that there are many ancient pictures or paintings of women wearing some kind of headwear. But again what people did in the past is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches; plus people wore headwear for all sorts of reasons, it doesn’t mean that they were abiding to Scripture either. Again, length of time of a practice cannot be used as proof. For example: The fact that people believed in using CRUCIFIXES and performed INFANT BAPTISMS for CENTURIES does not mean that we ought to accept such practices. (Feel free to Google this.) Wouldn’t those who believe in this use the same reasoning as those who point to history to lend credence to wearing veils? Of course they would. False doctrines have been around for centuries, therefore, how can anyone use paintings, photos or even writings to prove their interpretation of Scripture is correct? All it shows (like crucifixes and infant baptisms) that people can be wrong for a very long period of time. One can even point in the New Testament where people were already misinterpreting Scriptures and teaching others false doctrines. Therefore, what the people did, however long ago, does not prove that what they practiced was scriptural truth. Therefore it is irrelevant if some women in certain parts of the world wore something on their heads for many years, what matters is what the Scriptures teach. Our faith should be based on rock solid verses not the flimsy writings of man.

Thanks for your response. I think the stated teachings of 1 cor 11 in combination with the historical interpretation of most Christians through all of church history is proof enough.

@@JR-kw3be Yes

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That they are wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. If there where only two exclusive moments then one should have no problem if an “unveiled” woman speaks in tongues, interprets tongues, heals the sick, casts out devils, etc., right? Following such logic it stands to reason that the other instances that I mentioned should be acceptable WITHOUT a veil, right? Now should they say NO, then they should admit that there may be more instances; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, to be false. Please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that EXPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. People ASSUME this because they are misreading scripture. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in long hair. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real life scenario. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Did people really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? I am not saying this to be funny, but people have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved. Given that this comparison seems illogical one should consider that someone may be reading it wrong. For if “uncovered” means “short hair” then it fits the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair) then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved, since it is already short. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven than to being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman is somehow equal to being shaved. Please don’t dismiss this logic think about it for a minute. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women as well as headship. Bit as far as the physical head is concerned the question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say all of the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation. If we are to make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them without having to start studying Greek. 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 “covering” really meant a veil or to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up into the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying? Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil is missing and that it doesn’t look right? Someone needs to explain this logically. Again, don’t dismiss this think about it. Be honest, does looking at a woman doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying, that would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on such a woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong by OBSERING a woman’s head to be uncovered (having short hair) while praying and a man being covered (having long hair). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head “COVERED” in this verse refers to “LONG HAIR. ” I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is being exclusive to two actions instead of seeing them as two examples. As stated before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off, ESPECIALLY in this verse, as it offers no examples or “supposed” exclusive conditions. In this instance it is to be understood that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I have seen too many times people getting stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seems like some kind of headwear but do not take into consideration all the other verses that show that the “covering” means long hair and that the word “uncovered” is to mean short hair. Also, please keep in mind that there are various sections that would not make sense if you try to force the idea of veils. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil?

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Well said something to consider

Selwyn - - Angels are messengers. They are commissioned to carry our communications to and from God for us. The bible tells us that God does not hear the prayer of the unrighteous. So, if a woman is praying or prophesying, those things are involving angels. Ie. information given to her or information she is giving to an angel. That angel would be looking for a symbol on a woman to verify that she is in subjection (proper headship)to her husband otherwise, the angel would not carry the message back and forth on their behalf. Ie. God does not hear the prayer of the unrighteous. The symbol a woman places on her head tells an angel that in addition to being married, she understands her role under her husband and accepts his authority over her. Simply being married to a man does not mean that a woman is under his authority. This symbol on her head indicates that she is herself humbled under him. A woman who is NOT humbled under him is NOT going to wear a symbol on her head indicating that she is under his authority. The argument is often made that angels would know who is righteous or not and do not need a sign BUT, even the death angel on Passover night needed a sign to know which houses to avoid. Angels are always looking for signs. Shalom!

@@jeremiahchapman9288 great comment, thank you

@@okanaganoutdoors - Thank you for the encouragement. I try to share what I have learned as clearly as I can. This topic is not one that many are eager to embrace these days. :-) Shalom!

God gives jesus an inheritance, a kingdom, his kingdom he shares with men who are faithful and he anoints and raises them up but puts on their hearts to serve his ppl, a woman supports the most local micro of the whole shes the giver of life and birth via gods blessing and partnership with the husband. When you are married you veil the bride, just as heaven is veiled from us. When the marriage takes place u get a peak at that promise. When a wife takes her place with her husband let's say shes given land her husband owns along with the ppl her husband serves for god, amongst all the ppl this woman is given authority over the house, children, whatever is needed to serve the kingdom and gods ppl. The husband places authority on his wife, he tells his children to mind their mother and he reinforces the authority he gives as part of the kingdom. When you cover u have authority placed on your head as a daughter of the most high father. U come from the most high he is the king if all kings and through hierarchy and inheritance and discipline, conviction, obedience.. . U have authority placed on your head. It's not authority I had on my own its because I belong to a house, a kingdom, a king, hes given the authority and placed it on the women's head. He says here are my children and the need fed and so as a mother god gives u children u raise them as his with the authority he gave you. But it goes Deeper than that even. There is no such custom as women uncovered. I'm completely covered by the inheritance and authority my father gave me and I will dress and act as such. Set apart.

Jeremiah Chapman what about an unmarried female that covers her hair? I cover my hair because I my grandmother and mother did. Then, I read the Scriptures and saw it for my self, so now I do it and people always ask if I Muslim. I tell them back in the day if they look at old videos of women in the black church; they wore head coverings?

dym Umm the conclusion was wrong.

He's just saying that we should err on the side of caution (i.e. x is a principle) so as not to sin if it indeed is a principle, not a custom.

Sproul believed in head coverings, the woman may not have been covering their heads because it was not a formal meeting but simply just a teaching seminar or such. But I am clear it is a definite yes that woman should cover their heads during public praying and worshiping and men should not. There is a lot of truth contained within this simple practice that would require a whole separate sermon to expound. I will try and find a sermon which covers all the principles of head coverings and upload that here too. Thank you for your question. God bless!

I think this video covered it pretty well: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h6dklduBldS9j2Q.html&list=PLfTAgJQoq2oiJn_4n7l5dsGqzVSURGo7P&index=4

It's up to a woman's father if she is not married or her husband if she is married. If the woman ask the husband and he doesn't have a problem with it and sees it as a submission to God. It's principle and customary but it's also about modesty and such.

A typical question from those who are against long hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did they read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to “exclusive conditions” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. If such a person truly believes in this interpretation, then THEY SHOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM if an UNVEILED woman speaks in tongues, interprets tongues, heals the sick, casts out devils, etc., right? As long as she is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If their answer is NO, then they admit that it is NOT UNDER ONLY two conditions but that there could be many more; thereby making their argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot. Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in long hair. Let’s follow the logic of this verse in a real life scenario: Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Don’t just dismiss this logic think about it for a minute. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation, which we will cover later but if we are to logically make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them.

it talks about women and husbands? Um which version are you reading? My KJV says only women and men. Plus it refers to the order of creation so it def is not about marital status.

Amen. People try to fit what they do now (going to a church) into the Bible instead of letting the Bible teach you what it means.

Lars Norway It is

Yes, I am Reformed but the context of this passage is missed by most people. It's pretty crazy! However, it's exactly how they looked at biology!

I've heard Heiser's lecture several times. Makes total sense plus when you discover the temple prostitute's shaving their heads then Paul's words really come into focus. But way too many people wish to remain ignorant and their "pastors" are perfectly happy to keep them ignorant.

You are deceiving yourself willingly. Do you think women in those days didn't have hair on their heads? And Paul was that stupid to write a whole chapter about how women should cover their heads when praying even though he thinks their hair is a covering? If you read scripture with a disobedient heart, you will never obey God and that puts you closer to hell than you realize.

You are right! ☺️ Nature teaches that women have long hair as a covering and men have short hair. Paul even said judge for yourselves. Nevertheless the principle is that men take a headship role in the church and home and we should honor local customs.

Servant Michael dang dude you are delusional get a hold of yourself

@@mahlonfisher2590 Atleast have a decency to state what makes me, Paul, and God so delusional for you instead of just randomly insulting with no substance.

Servant Michael reality check did you know preaching about hell isnt what gets you saved?

AMEN!

the major issue is that some have made a distinction between the words "covering" and "long hair" when it seems like they are both the same. So if a woman is to cover her head and long hair is the covering then isn't it logical to understand that Paul is saying that the woman is to cover her head in long hair? The counterargument to that is the fact it states that a woman is to cover her head while praying and prophesying and that men are to do the opposite. So there is a false "appearance" that such things were to be done only under two conditions. But that is not what we read. It doesn't say the word "only" and when we read further it says another reason men shouldn't cover their heads is because he is the "image and glory of God" so there goes the two-conditional argument. One assumes that there are two conditions when one can easily argue that Paul was giving just two examples. In that it would look off if a woman doing something holy LIKE praying and prophesying while having such a short haircut and the same can be said for the man with long hair. Logic also dictates that if a woman must wear a cloth covering based on two conditions then doesn't that imply that she CAN be without it if she were to do something else like say cast out demons, talk in tongues, or interpret tongues etc. This head covering doctrine fails once one put things into logical perspective.

Hair is only one covering. Paul makes clear in verse 6 that the hair is not the only covering as he says if a woman is refusing to cover her head then her hair should also be shaved off. If it is simply the hair that is the cover then how can this hypothetical woman be refusing to cover her head as she obviously has hair? There is so much fundamental truth taught in the practice of head coverings which today is to often unfortunately missed because it is hastily thrown aside because it does not conform to our modern sensitivities. I recommend you give this issue further consideration and thought. Sorry it took me so long to get back to your message. God bless

Paul is talking about two distinct coverings.

A spiritual head covering. I noticed in the video, the commentator mentioned Paul saying “ don’t come to church looking like prostitutes “. Pause for a moment and go spiritual, what Paul is saying is “ you come in this church, as if your spirit is of the Father, yet your heart is still set on wickedness, Christ is not your “ head covering or spiritual headship “ you are committing prostitution(spiritually) because your head is not covered ultimately by Christ! Because if it was, then spiritually you would not look like a prostitute. To attempt to align scripture carnally can and will cause great confusion! He only used hair as an analogy so that the Corinthians could understand since they we so carnal and not spiritual. Man looks at the outside, the Heavenly Father looks at the heart! God doesn’t change just because some misinterpret scripture(s) 1 Samuel 16:7 and 2 Peter 3:16 ROMANS 8: 5-8!! Please read full chapter so therefore you will not be mislead.

@@biblicalbroadcasting2639 agreed. I believe that more pastors will not concede that the head covering is a physical cloth covering because if they do they know their pews of the "faithful" would empty out within a month (and I'm being generous on the timetable). The modern church panders to the sensibilities of modern tithers and consoles itself with the false hope that the ends justifies the means. Even newer study bibles contributing commentary refuse to commit to a straightforward exegesis on Paul's teachings here and rather offer blatantly timid advice for each person to discern for themselves Paul's meaning. Proverbs 3:5-6 anyone? It says what it means and means what it says. If Christian brothers and sisters could see the beauty in the covering I believe it would return. Most fail to see that the uncovering of the man+the covering of the woman = a visual representation of Gal 28:3. The covering elevates a woman for the glory of the Lord rather than subjugating her. Thank you for this great content on your channel

Stacy Stalstone, you must have meant a book other than Galatians because it only has six chapters. Here is the other scripture referenced for the ease or somebody who might be reading these comments: “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.” ‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭3:5-6‬

It's not legalism, nobody is saying this is a requirement for salvation. But the Scripture commands it in the same way we are commanded to love our neighbour and honour our mother and father.

Promoting the following of the law for your justification is legalism.. promoting the following of the law for your sanctification is Godly and Biblical. Huge difference. "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and HIS righteousness."

I agree there is legalism here but mainly because people MISINTERPRET the verses. If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation, which we will cover later but if we are to logically make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them.

the major issue is that some have made a distinction between the words "covering" and "long hair" when it seems like they are both the same. So if a woman is to cover her head and long hair is the covering then isn't it logical to understand that Paul is saying that the woman is to cover her head in long hair? The counterargument to that is the fact it states that a woman is to cover her head while praying and prophesying and that men are to do the opposite. So there is a false "appearance" that such things were to be done only under two conditions. But that is not what we read. It doesn't say the word "only" and when we read further it says another reason men shouldn't cover their heads is because he is the "image and glory of God" so there goes the two-conditional argument. One assumes that there are two conditions when one can easily argue that Paul was giving just two examples. In that it would look off if a woman doing something holy LIKE praying and prophesying while having such a short haircut and the same can be said for the man with long hair. Logic also dictates that if a woman must wear a cloth covering based on two conditions then doesn't that imply that she CAN be without it if she were to do something else like say cast out demons, talk in tongues, or interpret tongues etc. This head covering doctrine fails once one put things into logical perspective.

@@robertmiller812you take the hair is the only covering needed into verse 6 it reads like this if she does not have her hair on let her be shorn for it is shameful to be shorn or shaven let her be have her hair on. looking at this this becomes so confusing and completely doesn't make any sense, if she hasn't got her hair on then she is bald so to say that she might as well be shorn makes no sense as without her hair she cannot be shorn.

@@lukepinn621 Well if you are explaining it that way then some might see this as logical BUT your explanation isn't exactly correct to begin with, Allow me to butt in for a moment here. The idea seems like it does not make sense as it seems to be repetitive, but this is not being understood correctly. If being uncovered or not covered means having short hair and NOT BALD then it is possible that it can be shaved or shorn off. I have short hair, but neither is it a buzz cut or shaved off bald. Therefore, even though I have short hair it doesn’t mean that it cannot be cut even shorter or shaved bald. So now it is important to understand what shorn and shaven mean. The word “shorn” is the same word used when you shear sheep. A stubble is left behind. And shaven implies using a razor which implies that all the hair would be taken clean off. Note that the word “shorn” is repeated alongside the word “shaven” in the KJV as if to confirm and clarify that Paul is referring has to do with something extreme and that it causes shame. Obviously cutting off an inch of hair is not going to cause shame therefore the meaning implies something more. And since both words imply seeing the scalp he must be referring to baldness. A quick look at any dictionary will show that these words are synonymous. Therefore, by mentioning these words side by side Paul would seem to be emphasizing the fact that women with short hair may as well be made bald. Yet some refuse to see the obvious logic and will claim that it doesn’t mean baldness but just that it simply means cut, brushing aside the fact that it has a capacity of causing shame, but they don’t do the due diligence of research. For example, the SAME word “shorn” is used when Paul makes a vow and cuts off his hair. I don’t think any normal person reading this would assume that Paul took an inch off his hair right? No, it was common back then that when someone was serious about a vow, they would do a serious act like cutting ALL their hair off. There is nowhere to run away from this, shorn just like shaven has to do with baldness. It would also be very difficult to claim that Paul was speaking metaphorically as hair seems to be the main theme here and the removal thereof repeatedly. Why would he repeat the words shaved or shorn unless he was being literal? I think most of us can agree that having short hair (like in a typical male haircut) is NOT the same as having their hair shorn or shaven aka bald. Therefore, a woman being “uncovered” simply means that she has short hair and that in doing so she might as well shave the REST of her hair off. It’s not that complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. Unfortunately, people tend to get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seem like some kind of headwear but do not consider all the verses that show that “covering” means long hair and that “uncovered” means short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can we conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet, or veil? I reiterate, how can one have logical judgments in the example I gave that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil one would automatically assume that there is a foreign object missing? It makes no logical sense. Therefore, I implore everyone to set aside any bias and explain to themselves 1st Corinthians 11:13 thoroughly, but I suspect most people will simply ignore it. This, therefore, makes the whole veil interpretation wrong, that it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

Why so? Jesus talked about it in the New Testament and Paul who lived off on the tithing that churches willingly gave to him. It's like supporting a ministry. By tithing, you support the ministry of your pastor and your church. Don't you agree?

Tithing was to support the temple priests and costs of supplies to run the temple. There was no other income source at the time. Think about it.

@@DaisyIllustrations Paul never received tithes. He asked nothing from any church, he supported himself from tentmaking. Acts 20:33;34. Only farmers and herdsmen tithed. Jesus and the disciples didn’t tithe. The poor didn’t tithe. “Should the church teach tithing” .? By Russell Earl Kelly reveals the thruth about tithing today’s greedy pastors don’t want you to know. Because no one reads the Bible. And they are easily manipulated. The Bible says we are all priests unto God. We don’t tithe to a priest. The pastor is not the priest. We are all priests! Acts 15:20. What the church in Jerusalem decided gentiles needed to observe. Where is the tithing law? Acts 20:21. The Jewish Christians still tithed to the temple 35 years after the resurrection. and followed the law of Moses. They were Jews first . Christians second. When God destroyed the temple in 70 AD they finally got the picture. The old covenant is over.

@@baltichammer6162 there was a temple tax to pay for the temple. Tithes were only produce and livestock. Donated by farmers and herdsmen. It was to feed the Levitical priesthood . The Levite’s lived in levitical cities and the food was brought to the cities not the temple. The priests got their tithe from the cities. And they were to tithe unto the Lord. But they didn’t in Malachi. Explained n Nehemiah. Malachi 3:8 was addressed to the greedy priests who gave the Lord blemished and diseased sacrifices. But the pastors will not tell you that. Because no one reads the whole book. It is the priests that are robbing God and are cursed. Not the people.the people gave their tithes to the cities. And this is not New Testament teaching. God will judge every pastor who teaches tithing. The New Testament Church never taught tithing. It was hundreds of years later ( Romanism) so men could make a trade (business ) of Jesus. And now the 501c3 corporations masquerading as churches that were built from guilt tripping the flock into tithing, are selling the flock out and surrendering to the spirit of antichrist. That is the fruit of those who deceive for greedy gain.

@@DaisyIllustrations the collection Paul got from the churches was food to donate to the Jerusalem church that was in a great famine. Not a tithe. No tithe was collected. It was not money either. In a famine there is no food to buy, that is why it was food the churches had extra to give to the Jerusalem church. Probably grain ,corn , figs etc.

What that's what Paul had said. If we believe what the Bible says we need to believe in all of it. This is about submission to our husbands and to God. It's about modesty, principles, and custom. It is your choice if you want to head cover or not but don't look down at other women who choose that it for their life. If they feel that's what God wants for them nobody said anything about any other religions but followers of Christ aka christians. I do not argue with God Jesus or the Holy Spirit. I suggest you pray on it.