kzfaq.info/get/bejne/psuqbLhi29nMcas.html

I’ve never been asked why I have a headscarf or a hat on. I’m confused why someone would even ask. If they are a churchgoer they should know 1 Cor 11. Just give them the verse, they can look it up. I don’t think a long explanation is necessary… That said, I usually show some hair because when I wore a wrap, friends thought I had cancer 🫢

Sister, you are correct in saying you are covering your glory in worship, however, it has nothing to do with your husband on earth. All women (not wives) cover that only Christ be glorified. Worship has never been about an earthly husband, only a heavenly 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 is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 7… “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.

This is a great response.

I love Mike Winger and his love for the Bible, but you're absolutely correct: he chickened out at the end.

Yep. I was a bit stunned he could come to that conclusion after all that he acknowledged in 6 hours.

Christian women covered all the time, not just to church.

@@slash903Mike Winger is such a great theologian, but in a lot of ways whenever he talks about complementarianism or head coverings or especially eschatology or reformed theology, he always gets so close and then jumps back to Calvary Chapel-friendly teaching. God bless him and his work though

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/psuqbLhi29nMcas.html

Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around”. In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the condition first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Amen!

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

@@user-iz8np3vv4i I know it’s been a year, but if you see this, I’d appreciate your thoughts with Scripture and Commentary

@user-iz8np3vv4i I understand your point, however, it’s not a very accurate argument because this Mary you are referring to was in the context of Jewish culture, but head coverings as talked about by Paul seemed to be a more unique tradition given among the church which wasn’t yet established when this Mary washes Jesus’ feet. Milton Vincent has a series on head coverings you can find on Google where he covers how the Greek wording wouldn’t make sense that the covering is merely just hair.

@AlvarezFamily-zs9jr Actually the Greek words used for cover and covering align with the covering being hair. "Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around”. In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the condition first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai." (By Bernie Parsons)

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

Perhaps one should do a more thorough review as to whether your perception is more aligned with the Bible or skewed. Like what are your biblical reasons to think one ought to wear a foreign object on their heads? Also does the Bible really say the word veil or just the word covered which can imply long hair which we read in the Bible? Do that for a moment and see where it takes you.

​@@GodsWordisTruth-zg1jjTertullian witnessed Corinth women, both married and single wearing veils.

@@GodsWordisTruth-zg1jj Hi there. The scripture also says that any man “covering” his head while praying or prophesying brings dishonor to his Head. I’m curious but by your logic, wouldn’t men having hair dishonor their Head? If a “covering” is to symbolize anything including hair.

@@lluda44 I'm sure Tertullian witnessed a lot of things it doesn't mean that proves anything biblically. I can also quote from others that practiced infant baptism, sacramental rituals of all sorts for hundreds of years it still wouldn't prove it came from the Bible.

Those are acceptable only because Yahweh specifically commanded those things to be done. And even if Paul’s argument was only concerning hair length, and not an artificial covering one would still need to reconcile that Nazarite vow

Your exegesis contradicts itself (that is, if you agree that Paul is appealing to natural law in 1 Cor. 11). If Paul is appealing to natural law, then he is appealing to something God cannot, even temporarily, command us to break. You are essentially treating the moral law like the ceremonial, but they are not the same. One can be abrogated, the other cannot. One is created, the other is the eternal reflection of God's unchanging nature. To prove this, let me give you an example of how the Nazarite vow would sound if we replaced it with a different moral/natural Law, and you tell me if you think God could ever command a vow like this: "All the days of his vow of separation, no woman shall lie with him, but only men. Until the time is completed for which he separates himself to the Lord, he shall be holy. He shall only perform sexual intercourse with other men."

Please don't get on that train as it is a misinterpretation. Paul in 1st Cor 11 was simply saying that a woman ought to be covered in long hair. If context matters anymore you would find that (in the KJV) the passage reveals the word hair written 3 times and the words shorn and shaven written 4 times. That is a total of 7 references to hair. Now of course one will say but it says women are to cover and men to uncover but Paul is not using these words as a noun but as an adverb (like covering the feet or hands). Now try finding the word veil as a NOUN. There is none. The mistake MOST head covering people make it they take these words to mean a veil. But it cannot be translated that way. Some are even convinced that the word cloth is there somehow, which is a completely different word. The sentence structure is not identifying what the thing is that is to be used to cover just that the head should or shouldn’t be covered. Some will say it says “head covering” when that is not true it says for the women to cover their head. One is a separate object (head covering) and the other is the action to cover the head. Be careful and don't fall into this error.

Amen to that. It couldn't be simpler to understand.

If her hair is the covering, and man is to *Not cover his head* then by that argument all men should shave there heads, *Or* if you hold the argument of hair length then women with short hair It woild apear are failing to hold this position.

jrhone7844 (Credit to commentor FA) "I have noticed that most head covering promoters misinterpret the beliefs of those who believe that long hair is the covering. In their efforts to show that it doesn’t make sense they will state something like: “If hair were the covering, then men should be shaved bald (aka uncovered) every time they pray.” You’d be surprised at how many times I’ve read this in the comments section of various KZfaq videos. There are several errors here, the first being that no one is saying that to be uncovered means to be shaved. If a woman is to be covered in long hair and a man is NOT to be covered in long hair, then we are not talking about baldness or being shaved it just means that a man should not have long hair or another way to say the same thing is that he should have SHORT hair. So that is mistake number one. Mistake number two is that what Paul was preaching had to do with some action that requires something to be taken off (or put on). Although it is true that Paul was saying that men ought to be uncovered when praying or prophesying but he wasn’t being exclusive he was just giving a couple of examples. The idea is that a believing man should not have long hair (meaning he should be uncovered) while doing anything holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. What? Do you think Paul saying it was ok to be “covered” while preaching, talking in tongues, interpreting tongues, casting out devils, singing to the Lord, worshipping to the Lord, dancing to the Lord, etc. as long as it was not those two exclusive moments? Evidence that he must have been referring to hair is also based on his mentioning of the order of creation between men and women in verses 8 and 9. If Paul is making the effort to include this as a reason why women should be covered, and men uncovered then it must be BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats. It also must be BEFORE any idea of church. Therefore, what else could Paul be talking about if not hair way back in the beginning? It had to have been something that existed since then and had to have been natural like hair."

@SheldonVazquez-ib8ib Paul says her head should be shaven if its not covered, therfore if u hold that position i beleive yes men would be shaven, not short, if yoh hold the position not shaven only short, then you end up not knowing where the line is, how short? Many women have short hair, so short its close to mens, so are those women in sin? No i dont beleive so. Hair is not the covering Paul is refering to here, he eliminates that possibility in how he structures the first part of chapter 11.

@jrhone7844 You seem to be avoiding the fact that God wants women to have long hair. It was given to her by God himself read v 15. This passage is regarding those women who have chosen to cut their hair short thereby making them uncovered. You stated that in my view one would not know where the line is to hair length. But if you check out the Greek word for covering in v 15 you would find out that it means to wrap around. So would anyone really need to know how long or short the hair should be? If it can wrap around the head, then there is no need to pull out the tape measure. A bob haircut won’t do obviously. So with all this evidence we cannot dismiss that the covering is long hair. Plus the way he structures the first part of chapter 11 is even more evidence that he is referring to hair. A variation of the word katakalyptō is used in verses 5-14. The words used are covered, uncovered and not covered. These words are adverbs which scholars admit to, they are not nouns. So the word or idea of a cloth or veil is never used here, which are VERY specific words that have another meaning in Greek.

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

Children too.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/psuqbLhi29nMcas.html

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That such women are either dishonoring God or their own physical head or husband for failing to wear it which constitutes that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. This verse is also often assumed that the women being referred to in some of these verses already have long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though the covering is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, etc. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mentions the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, neither a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else we deem fit. In fact, it would seem more like a verb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. As I mentioned earlier some will lay claim that they must be referring to a physical head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. Allow me to expand on this if you will because this is very important. If you are going to make the argument to prove your point that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible supposedly claims that women ought to wear a veil based only on two conditions, then it is only logical to understand that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one; for example: if the woman is speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should deny this, meaning that the woman should wear their “veil” under other conditions then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying such an argument. Please note that the belief in women wearing veils for many groups hinges on this “two-condition” argument because if there were conditions then it would seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off. But keep in mind that it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off. Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promotor would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” So, if the reason for the man not to cover his head is because he is the “image and glory of God,” why would there be two conditions? Should he not be covered under any condition because of this major reason? Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples and if so then why do the same for verse 5? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave that out? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.

* So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, we should be asking when they are referring to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s the case, then to be uncovered would mean to have short hair. If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is very important so please don’t dismiss it. Be honest with yourself do YOU really believe that the average person will look at an unveiled, praying woman and naturally think a VEIL is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say something like: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head?” after looking at a long-haired, praying woman. To so do would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong: whether it be OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (a.k.a. short hair) while praying or OBSERVING a man having long hair. In addition, by using the word “NATURE” you can’t even use the excuse that perhaps they were expecting only Christians to see something different. Clearly, if “nature” teaches us that something looks off then it must be including all of mankind as nature teaches all of us both Christian and non-Christian. I would like to also add that these verses are NOT jumping from the discussion of a “veil” in verse 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in verse 14 like some would like to argue because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” is to mean “long hair.” Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses are referring to hair length. By this, we can understand verse 4 which states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered as I previously mentioned. I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due to the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is exclusive to two conditions instead of seeing them as two examples. As mentioned before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR.

Hi, I think I understand your point and you may be correct in this interpretation! While this is not something that I claim to know for certain, it appears to me that the argument Paul is making in verses 14 and 15 is that women (naturally in the world around us) are given a covering for their head that is meant to symbolize the heirarchical nature between man, woman, and God that he is describing earlier in the chapter. I think that this (natural) head covering is just given as an argument for the framework for his argument for "actual" head coverings in the scenario of a woman "prophesying" in church. Practically speaking, I think that he is saying (simplified) "women should wear head coverings while worshiping in church for the same reason they should wear long hair (which act as head coverings) outside of church". I don't think that he is saying long hair acts a legitimate replacement for a "real" head covering to wear while prophesying. I might be missing the mark on this, I admit, but this is my understanding of 1 Cor. 11.

@@Dsquareddyson Though I do understand your points but I do not see anything that appears to referring to two different coverings which you mention as “natural” and “actual.” From verses 4 to 15 when it comes to the fact that a woman ought to cover her head it is the same matter in that they are referring only to hair. The issue is usually on the words covered and uncovered, which states a woman should be covered and that a man should not be covered. But one can easily show that hair can cover the head also. Therefore in terms of women they ought to cover their head with long hair. There is no reason to assume that when they say a woman ought to cover their head one should imagine a cloth or fabric. It makes no reference to a noun. Like a hat or a bonnet or veil. There are no instructions to dimensions. That’s because they are just saying cover the head and when we read the CONTEXT of the passage we read the words “long hair” written twice, the words shorn written twice and the word shorn written once. By the context we don’t get words that associate with something unnatural or synthetic like a hat or veil instead, we read repeatedly words associated with hair or the lack thereof. Neither does it mention anything about having to pray or prophesy in a church setting. I mean lets be honest what verse would you or anyone use to prove such a thing? Some people assume that is what they mean even though it doesn’t actually say so. If the idea was about hair throughout the passage then Paul was simply saying that a Christian woman would look wrong if she were to be praying or prophesying with a manly haircut. Same goes for the men with long hair. If you reread the passage and understand that to be covered means to be with long hair and to be uncovered means to be with short hair then you will see it will all make sense.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter in response to saying that it doesn't mention anything about having to pray or prophesy in a church setting I have a few points: 1) The entire epistle is written to the Christian church in Corinth, and the letter is written to give instruction to how the church should conduct herself. 2) This is directly applicable to the church setting today, becuase when we gather on Sunday to worship and meet with the Lord, there is certainly praying and a sense of "prophesying" being done by everyone in the congregation when we are lifting up our voices to be in conversation with God. - I think that further evidence that having a "covered head" refers to an actual cloth is because that was a widespread custom at the time for all Christian women in the Church. Rome and Greece. Jew and Genitle alike. -Again, I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong on this, but it doesn't make much sense to me for Paul to say something along the lines of "for if a woman has short hair, let her also have really short hair" v. 6. This is how you would have to read that if you are reading "uncovered" as "having a short haircut".

The answer is that the Bible never mentions that a woman’s head ought to be covered with a cloth. But that of course won’t stop die-hard head-covering enthusiasts. If we focus on the passages in 1st Corinthians 11 we cannot subscribe Paul’s words to mean a veil or cloth or any kind of head covering. If we read just a few passages, we can conclude what Paul was saying or at the very least not saying. “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered…”, “…every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered…”, “…if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn…”, and “…a man indeed ought not to cover his head…” Each time the word covered or uncovered is used here it never mentions the word cloth or veil. These words cannot be used as a thing like a noun, but it is evident that they are conveying a state of being like when we use an adverb. In addition, just because the words “cover the head” is written it should not mean that we can rearrange the words so it can be understood as a physical separate object like “head covering” which would be very misleading. I don’t know about the average person but the logical question upon reading this is, ok if a woman is to be covered then what exactly is she supposed to be covered with? As strange as this might sound some have conveyed that one should already understand the meaning by now. But when pressed to read further there is usually a knee-jerk reaction to stop to separate this part from the rest. This they do to avoid understanding the full meaning by reading the rest of the verses, because they know that the key words of “hair” are about to come up. As in all books or writings, any reader should be able to read the entire passage to get a better understanding. Instead, the usual reaction is to claim that one part is referring to a synthetic covering and the other part is referring to a natural covering, despite the fact that there is no wording to claim this distinction much less specifically a cloth. If one were to simplify the passage by measuring the amount of times hair is mentioned and a head covering like a cloth or veil (if we use the King James bible) it would be 7 to zero. The word hair is mentioned 3 times and the words related indirectly to hair like shorn and shaven are mentioned 4 times. Therefore, if one were to say that the context of the passage refers to hair they would be logically correct.

But Paul says that this tradition is unique to the church, so it seems like something new imparted not a necessarily something we might find in the OT.

🤦‍♂

Really? I am by no means defending this guy who has a misinterpretation of what covering the head really means, but by golly the woman is hardly immodest for showing her knees. Verse and chapter please that prove knee showing to be immodest. I can agree that it would be hypocritical if he were making the case about veils or hats to be worn at all times but he is referring only during what he refers to as corporate worship. But I think both of you are wrong as Paul mentions the words long hair, shorn and shaven twice for a total of 6 times. Paul in verse 13 asks us to make a judgment if the woman praying being uncovered looks comely (pleasing in appearance) and there is no natural reason for any man to see anything innately wrong with that if he were referring to a veil but to be uncovered means to not be covered in long hair (aka have short hair). So the verse makes sense that if we see a woman praying with short hair it really doesn't look right. Guys need to reread your bible but without the religious bias churches have implemented on their followers.

Ok I'll bite why is it false? Whether true or false what does this information have to do with scripture? I admit I am not into what may or may not have been practiced by others but what the scriptures say. I am being honest when I say I would like to know/learn.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter _why is it false?_ Because it was very much a cultural practice for married women to cover their heads. _Whether true or false what does this information have to do with scripture?_ A vitally important aspect of interpreting Scripture is understanding the context. Scripture was written in a particular time to particular people. If you wrote a letter today and referenced some cultural aspect of your culture, 2000 years from now it would be important for someone reading the letter to know that aspect of your culture to understand the point you're making. _I admit I am not into what may or may not have been practiced by others but what the scriptures say_ Everyone is concerned with what the Scriptures say. The question is: is Paul giving an eternal dress code command, or is he giving an eternal principle command, the application of which can be cultural. In addition to this, Scripture cares about culture. Off the top of my head, one example is Ephesians 4:29. What may be "corrupting talk" (think curse words) and "as fits the occasion" can be different depending on the culture you're in. I don't go to another culture and use words that are not offensive in my culture when I know they will tear down because they're considered offensive there.

@@michaelmannucci8585 why is it false? Because it was very much a cultural practice for married women to cover their heads. I can agree to a small extent that perhaps there were some places that held a cultural practice for married women to cover their heads. But of course that does not mean that this was a biblical mandate of course. Again I can agree to a small extent what was happening around the area they lived may help one to understand a little of the Bible but of course it is not essential to understand the scriptures. A child can pick up the Bible and with help of the Holy Spirit can make them understand anything without being a sort of historian. When comes to cultural practices and the topic of head coverings I have noticed people tend to say that the verses in 1 Corinthians 11 were only meant for the people at the time it was written. But of course, there are way too many verses that easily suggest that they are timeless and not at all restricted to a time or place. Is Paul giving an eternal dress code command, or is he giving an eternal principle command, the application of which can be cultural? I think it is very evident that Paul is not referring to a dress code in that women should wear a hat or veil. I would say by the context of scripture it is clearly an eternal principle. It is unfortunate that some people want to see veils in order to continue their misinterpretation when the passage is referring to men keeping their hair short and women long. Often they get stuck on the words “covered” and “uncovered: or think Paul is speaking conditionally when referring to praying and prophesying, which leads them down the road to misunderstanding. Culture can become irrelevant especially if it clashes with biblical doctrine therefore one needs to be careful if what they think they are reading in the passage or allowing outside sources to guide their understanding.

@@michaelmannucci8585 This is where the false teaching of fabric coverings eventually went: ... but because it has also been enjoined that the head should be veiled and the face covered; for it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men. Nor is it seemly for a woman to wish to make herself conspicuous, by using a purple veil. Would it were possible to abolish purple in dress, so as not to turn the eyes of spectators on the face of those that wear it! But the women, in the manufacture of all the rest of their dress, have made everything of purple, thus inflaming the lusts. -THE INSTRUCTOR by Clement of Alexandria Regardless, this is what Paul wrote: ...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.

@@user-iz8np3vv4i Very well said!

I noticed that you are all over the place trying to push the idea that men should wear a head covering except when in church. To be honest you are not going to get too many converts here not even from the legalistic head covering movement who only care that women wear something. But I see from your comment that you have several flaws in your logic. First of all you are under the mistaken idea that “…women should cover their head to show they are submitting to their spouse…” Nowhere in Scripture are you going to find that idea, especially if you read from the KJ version. In that version it never uses the word spouse or wife or husband. Paul’s teaching was meant for everyone both married and single. Proof of which is in verses 8-9 when it mentions the reason a man should not be covered and that a woman should be is because he is the image and glory of God that woman came from man (order of creation). Therefore, this is more than enough proof that this is not concerning one’s marital status. You also make a non-scriptural reason that because the woman is covered so also should the man be covered to “show they need to submit to God”. This is definitely not taken from any scripture. You seem to be making things up as you go. You seem to have created a doctrine that if the man “…has chosen Jesus as His Lord, then he should show that commitment by wearing a head covering…” But there is no scripture that backs this up so I don’t understand why you would even say this? Then for some reason you have taken Deut. 6:8-9 and arbitrarily combined that with Jesus saying that one should keep his words, even when there is no reason to connect the two. Then you make another doctrine that “To not wear a head covering simply shows that you have not chosen in whom you shall serve.” This is borderline heretical that you are imposing a doctrine that if a man does not wear a hat or veil or whatever it is you are thinking that he has not chosen to serve Jesus. This is a cause for concern because not only are you making up a doctrine, but you are playing with God’s plan of salvation. I seriously suggest that you repent of this folly as you have no proof to back up your claim and the enemy is playing with your mind. I will be praying for you.

@@robertmiller812 It would be interesting to know how you "keep" the Commandments. If you are thinking one can just memorize them, let's hope you don't get a head injury or old and loose your mind, nor just forget.

@@godswarriors7543 I think it would have been more interesting to have read any proof or counterarguments. Instead you are looking for chinks in my armor. How about you just admit you have no evidence and cannot make a decent counterargument to my words that expose you?

@@robertmiller812 I noticed that also, so I hope he can back up his words I would love to hear the evidence.

...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. -NASB A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. No fabric covering is mentioned in Corinthians. If a fabric covering is actually required, then all references to hair are totally irrelevant to the subject. It only can make sense if the long hair of a woman is the 'covering'. She should be covered, with her long hair. To have short hair, like a man, means that she is basically bald. Therefore uncovered.

You are preaching a false doctrine people are not saved by works.

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

preference is fine so long as we don't cross the line and make it doctrinal.

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, what we should be asking when mentioning the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of foreign object that goes on the head? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.