I think 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.

God bless you!

* If there were really 2 conditions which imply a temporary moment then why do some say it ought to be worn nearly all the time? When one allows themselves to be consumed with one doctrine it sometimes moves them to take the development of this doctrine a step further. In this case, certain sects have made the ordinance that women ought to wear veils nearly 24 hours a day. The way this is justified is due to the combination of verses such as 1st Thessalonians 5:17, which states we are to “pray without ceasing” and the verses in 1 Corinthians 11 that mention women “praying.” The major problem with this is that it hurts the argument for those who adhere to wearing veils only under two conditions. Since their argument is that women are to wear a veil or hat for a couple of moments in time and for some only during “public” worship. But the nearly “24-hour argument” rejects the public worship condition or any brief temporal moment. People have told me (in order to justify and rationalize wearing their veils throughout the day) that to avoid constantly putting it on and taking it off they might as well leave it on and only take it off when changing, washing up, or going to sleep. The problem is that some have made it into a strict rule with no option to take it off even if they are not doing the supposed conditions and to do so may get them in trouble with their own group. This type of reasoning is how man-made doctrines are formed. I almost have no doubt that this must be causing some veil promoters to live in a very confusing bubble, especially those who use the two-condition argument and at the same time claim it out to be worn nearly all the time. For on the one hand, they argue that the covering is a veil that one puts on when praying or prophesying but on the other hand, it is required to be worn nearly all the time. So, it’s ok to preach that it is removable but in practice, they have their women BOUND to wear them and not take them off regardless of whether they are praying or prophesying. This is very inconsistent. This one misinterpretation causes a snowball effect by creating an array of issues, which is not biblically supported. Also, if a woman should cover her head with a hat or veil all the time because she should always be praying then this should also mean that a man should NEVER have his head covered because he should always be praying all the time as well. Men wear all kinds of head covering for various reasons on a day-to-day basis and it is not considered a sin. For example, during winter a bald man would wear a hat to insulate his head against the cold, and a man who works in construction would and should wear a helmet for safety purposes. If we were to accept or agree that, unlike verses 4 and 5 explicitly state, 1st Corinthians 11 teaches women to ALWAYS wear head coverings, then we are also saying men should NOT wear a head covering at any time. The latter proposition is clearly not reasonable and thus makes of no effect this interpretation.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Very interesting point you make about men and hats. Yet I will point out that if a man is in the work field and stops to pray at lunch or because there's some emergency he will take off his hat to pray. If a women doesn't cover in the work field but only in church when she needs to stop and pray she cannot just put her covering on, unless she carries it with her. Hence why women were in the habit of wearing the covering all the time minus bathroom/bedroom time.

@@1Sackettgirl Although it is feasible to remove the hat or cap when men begin to purposefully stop to pray, but as some have already argued that since it says that we are to pray without ceasing some (like say the Mennonites) would argue that they may as well not wear a hat because one would be constantly praying or dot it at a spur of the moment issue like a sudden accident. This is also the argument (by some) for women to wear something on their heads. But of course as I mentioned earlier that Paul was not mentioning a hat or veil (as those nouns are not there) but that when he refers to being covered he meant being covered in long hair and for men short hair when he says they ought to be uncovered (not covered in long hair). When one reads the passage one should refrain from reading it as veil promoters do as "head covering" this re-wording implies a separate item, whereas the Bible (KJV) states a woman ought to cover her head and given the facts that the rest of the passage refers to hair in one way or another (long hair 2x shorn 2x and shaven 2x) it should be evident to conclude that a synthetic covering is never mentioned.

Thanks Brett!

That's the strongest argument as for consistency as I see it, yes. I still have reservations regarding it clearly not being instituted until the new covenant, perplexing for something that's rooted in creation, and I'm going to have to examine if anyone else in church history interpreted "prayer and prophecy" as meaning corporate worship or if it's just a convenient way to avoid 24/7 application.

@@horrificpleasantry9474 Jeremiah 2:32 [32]Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number. The word "attire" literally means headband. Numbers 5:18 they uncover the womans head (which implies being covered is normal) Rebekah covered her head in Genesis 24:65 There are other places too such as Isaiah 47:2 and Song of Solomon 5:7

@@Caleb-fm1hp Thanks for this list, I have been wanting to study the old testament applications of this. I have noticed Haman covering his head in shame and the priests wearing turbins which is interesting.

​@@RightResponseMinistries Hmm.. I thought the covering was for the head, not for the hair? The bible says that we shall cover the head. But does that mean we have to cover the whole head? And also.. If it is to be understand as you do that the woman shall cover mans glory wouldnt that mean that the women should cover all of her since we are the glory of man?

Jeremiah 2:32 Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number. That word "attire" in Hebrew literally means "headband". Headcovering is associated with being tender and delicate Isaiah 47:1-2 "...for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks..." Song of Solomon 5:7 The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me. Rebekah covered her head for her husband Genesis 24:65 For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself. Torah implied womens' heads being covered is the norm. Else why would her head be uncovered by the priest? A woman would go before the priest appropriately dressed. Numbers 5:18 And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:

Completely agree. Fantastic insight.

Thank you, I was saved two months ago and I began covering my head 2 days ago. I cover all day because I pray all throughout the day. It was a very difficult decision for me because I haven't met any other Christian women currently practicing head covering.

@@JesusLightsYourPath I think 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.

@@RightResponseMinistries Hi. I'm wondering, what kind of head covering does your wife wear? Hat? Chapel veil? Bandana or kerchief type of covering? Also, why don't you preach about it at your church every couple of years or so? Each woman will still make her own decision to cover or not. But can't really make the choice if she doesn't hear about it.

@@tinahochstetler2189 Most pastors today believe what they've been taught in seminary, and that is that the head covering was a tradition of that time and that it is not applicable today, so they're not going to teach the women to cover their heads during worship. And then you have some who do believe women should cover but they don't want to upset the women, so they stay quiet. There really isn't any getting around this plain teaching but it's so reviled today that people are happy with any explanation given for not covering.

Thanks!

You’re welcome

Glad to hear it.

Your long hair is the 'covering'. I post with scripture about this a lot. Reply if desired. Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone... -excerpt John 12

I'm the only one that covers at my church and I have for years, truthfully no one notices. They think it's probably just my style maybe or don't notice. Most because they don't notice also don't know I wear it daily most all day. So family notices more because they will see me for multiple days in a row and even then I've only had one aunt of mine ask me about it. I'm very involved in my church and no one asks, I have 3 friends who know my convictions but don't cover and don't care that I do. I even work with teens at church and they can be tougher critics but don't notice either. I wear all kinds of covers, I have a bit if everything and just wear what's comfortable or matches my outfit. I have some headband ones that can be thick headband or can be pulled back and hang well below my bun or be tucked in like a snood. Lots of hats too. I feel more convicted over the years to have it hanging down not just a turban or cap bit I suppose it depends on what I'm doing. If I feel I really really need to be obedient and focused I'll wear a shawl draped over my head or wear one tied with long tails I'll drape infront of me. I think it depends on convictions and translations as to if it refers to fabric hanging... I think of it hanging long like hair would be. It shouldn't be a distraction for others and if it is just pray for them. It shouldn't cause others to stumble either if anything the Holy spirit can work on their hearts as to why it might distract them. We must be obedient and faithful and not worry what others think.

When attention turns to you...turn it back to God. Quote scripture when confronted and position yourself not in a place of prominent view. Don't hide, but don't sit 3rd row center where the lights just right... and of course consult your husband first if you have one.

And *you should... have asked Joel to consider your idea instead of telling him (not your husband) what he should do to serve you... There was a woman named Jezebel who acted that way... I don't recommend you imitate or emulate her spirit

@@LampWaters sorry for not responding before I’m just seeing this comment 😮 thank you so much for that info. Very helpful thank you!😊

@@shenanigansofmannanan Just bc you don’t prefer the wording does not qualify a woman as possibly having a “Jezebel” spirit. So flippantly throwing a label like that at a sister of Christ and daughter of God, over YOUR preferential wording, is not usually recommended. God is not so loose with His terms when speaking of His bride as you seem to be. Lastly, my wording was/is not offensive to God or my husband. It’s a public podcast and anyone can make suggestions or public requests to get better clarification on what was said. I know how I was saying it and you putting on me what your intention was when you read it is your own heart problem, not mine. Loving those in Christ’s body as well as assuming no wrong of their intentions (1Cor 13.5) is the goal of brothers & sisters. So let’s try giving that verse a quick little look over next time bf our responses. :) P.s. thanks for your 1st response tho! Thankfully my husband has helped me navigate through it all when I started wearing it at service since my post. Blessings.

Agreed

I really enjoyed his series on it

Denny Kenaston has an excellent series on this as well.

You’re welcome!

Veil? Yeah. This is just one step away from a burka.

Thanks Noah!

Yup, headcoverings is in the Bible and understood by all early Christians. Wait till you hear what they understood about baptism in the Bible!

@@IAmisMaster Haha. I’m fully aware of the Early Church’s view of Baptism.

@@RightResponseMinistries Well then the next step is to believe it as by far the more persuasive interpretation :)

@@IAmisMaster hahaha. Fair enough. I could certainly be wrong, and the majority of my favorite preachers/theologians are paedobaptists. But alas, I am still a Baptist, so help me God.

Very, very encouraging comment. Thank you for your kindness.

Is there anything in the biblical text to help with deciding on to cover only in corporate worship on Sunday or from when you wake up to bedtime prayer.

@@NITSUD-yr6rg There's nothing in the text that says you're supposed to cover your head at church. It says when a woman prays or prophesies she ought to cover her head. There is some serious exegetical gymnastics that needs to be done to make "when praying and prophesying" = "at all times during Sunday morning worship exclusively".

If you’re husband is fine either way, then you should definitely cover.

My friend (married couple, not a 'lady friend') who has been recently converted to this in the last two years, in her customarily challenging way, boiled it down to, all else besides, what's the root motivation for a woman to refuse if her husband asks her? The honest truth is rebellion. They don't want to actually have to act like/show that they are in/believe themselves to be in subjection to a man, to others. Submission is great when it requires nothing from you. But the fact that that's a hill to die on shows that it's really coming from pride, ultimately. And that realization on its own is almost sufficient by itself to justify the practice. As a single guy, I'm conscious of the fact that tactfully asking about this subject will provide insight into whether a woman really can be submissive. If you can't do it in something that doesn't hurt you one bit, how can you submit in greater things?

Yes, good point. Submission does require a certain amount of self denial. But Christ has redeemed me in my womanhood, making me want to subject my will to my Lord. That is the heart of the issue, and a response you can look for in a wife.😊

Correction: I should not use the word "but" in that. It made it sound like I didn't quite agree with you. Lol. I'm in full agreement.

What’s your podcast?

Thank you!

Amen.

You can do it! God bless you in your obedience.

Obedience and salvation are related: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven" (Saint Matthew 7:21).

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

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 for them to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14. * 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.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter “…the thing that is most astonishing here is that he appeals to creation, not to Corinth. If anything transcends local custom it is those things that are rooted and ordered in creation. That’s why I’m very frightened to be loose with this passage.” - R.C. Sproul Our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words in to the Apostle’s mouth, but we are ignoring the words that are there.” As Dr. Sproul frequently noted, Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 11:2-12 grounds head coverings for wives in worship in the order of creation. Man was created first, which puts him in a position of authority over his wife; therefore, his wife should cover her head in corporate worship as a sign of her submission. Whatever role other cultural factors may play, grounding head coverings in the creation order suggests that the practice should be followed in every generation. It is something that reflects the world as it was created and how it should be.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Contentious sisters were provided with an alter­native: 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.

It is contentious because women don't like to cover up. Their vanity makes them want everyone to look at them.

Well one could make a comparison to baptism because both are commanded by God, but nowhere in the Bible does it say baptism is simply a physical expression without spiritual efficacy. Though headcoverings also have spiritual efficacy: hence why it is done “because of the angels” (1 Cor. 11:10).

@@IAmisMaster And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Luke 23:42,43

sons of God daughters of men…..I think so too

Correct

For women, covering up their heads is the ultimate act of submission. It requires a woman to act against her natural inclination, which is to gain attention for her physical beauty, and to be noticed by others.

Hello! I thought the verse talked about headcovering not haircovering. Do we have to cover the hair also and not just the head?

Certainly Christ is uniquely present in the Lord’s Supper. All of the Lord’s Day corporate worship is “Communion.” And the Lord’s Supper is the climax of that Communion. Christ is uniquely (and spiritually) present in the Lord’s Day gathering, but Christ is especially uniquely (and spiritually) present in the Lord’s Supper.

I find this formulation strange, as explanations of how it's distinct from other views makes it essentially equivalent to saying "God is omnipresent. He blesses the obedience of the one who faithfully participates in baptism and communion."

@@RightResponseMinistries thanks! yes, I agree

So unmarried women don't have to cover their heads in public worship?

@@innovationhq8230 unmarried women are under authority as well so it applies

God bless

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. There are probably many reasons. Angels probably respect order and authority. Good ones might be more inclinded to serve you and protect you better. There is a spiritual realm and the headcovering is spiritually symbolic which may add spiritual protection.

I do not have the perfect answer to you but what I will say you aren't doing anything wrong by covering. Even as a single woman you can cover and know that you are still pleasing the Lord

God bless, based on the passage I would say yes. As it to women in general. May God bless you, your family, and your enemies that all may be brought to Christ. I love you sister and thank you for your heart of obedience. I say as a brother in Christ stand strongly as a woman of the faith. The world is against women and seeks to confuse her, just like in the garden. Women are the weaker sex so we see satan seems to attack the women hard. Please stand firm in Christ, I see the beauty in God’s creation when a woman is modest and obeys the commandments of Christ. It is such a beautiful thing, the word holy means “Set apart by (or for) God, holy, sacred. From hagos; sacred.” So be set apart, and all for God’s glory. I say this with much encouragement. It is a truly beautiful thing and May God bless you abundantly for your obedience. I love you.

@@Juduh aww thank you so much 🥺❤️

Please be encouraged from one sister in faith. It's so amazing that covering your head is part of taking back the holy ordinances that have belonged to the church but have been neglected for decades. Let your light shine, let your head be covered, and let a display of godly order be restored for both men and women. God's got you and you've got this.

(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes Someone else's: post length also 7 minutes Reply for posts if desired. They include scriptures and commentary.

@@user-iz8np3vv4i If the woman's long hair is her covering, then there would be no purpose to even write about it in the bible, since all the women of that time had long hair. Why would Paul have to admonish the women to cover their heads?

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

@@nerychristian 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 for them 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 no one disputes this but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. 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 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. Allow me to expand on this if you will because this is very important. If you are going to make the argument to prove your point that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible supposedly claims that women ought to wear a veil based on two conditions, then it is only logical to understand that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one; for example: if the woman is speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should deny this, meaning that the woman should wear their “veil” under other conditions then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. Please note that the belief in women wearing veils for many groups hinges on this “two-condition” argument because if there were actual conditions then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. But keep in mind that it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off. Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” So, there seems to be another reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should he not be covered under any condition because of verse 7? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not look right if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14. (originally posted by FA)

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

Since her hair is already a covering of the head, if the hair is itself being covered, then it makes logical sense to me that all the hair is to be covered.

this is one of the reasons i don't think the covering is a literal cloth covering. so much confusion over the specifics. should no hair be seen? how big should it be? should single women cover? what age does a girl become a woman? should a 2 year old girl wear one? does she also need long hair? how long should it be? should she cover all day or only during church meetings? I don't think God wants us to rack our brains about the specifics...I really think the covering is her hair.

Some practices in the in the first testament are not practiced in the second testament . The second testament clearly describes what should be done today on head coverings. Just like the donkey that gave a word of wisdom doesn’t mean churches should seek out donkeys.

Maybe the men wore let their hair grow, but would tie it up so it wasn't covering their face.

(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes Someone else's: post length also 7 minutes Reply for posts if desired. They include scriptures and commentary.

@@user-iz8np3vv4i I think you may have a posted an essay on a question I asked here yesterday concerning a matter from the video, but I unknowingly deleted it when I deleted my comment. I am responding here because I have noticed you seem to be passionate in your rejection of head covering but I had a couple of thoughts in response to what you posted to me. 1. You appealed to the Old Testament dress of the priesthood and said that Paul was incorrect to reference traditions because traditional dress was the opposite of what 1 Cor. 11 puts forward (with priests covering their heads). I would suggest that Paul wasn’t referring in any way to the Old Testament law in 1 Cor. 11, but to the new traditions (translated “ordinances” in the KJV) which had been given to the churches/followers of Christ. 2. Secondly, your assumption about head covering is that the intent was to cover the hair because it’s unclean or something. That’s not my take on the reason. Paul says a woman’s hair is her glory- there’s no reason to think it would be bad for it to touch someone including Jesus. The reading that makes the most sense to me regarding the purpose of headcovering is found in the fact that a woman now has the gift of direct prayer and prophesy (not in church, but in her daily life) because of Christ and she should have a covering as a symbol of authority upon her head. 3. I think you presented the hair is the covering argument. As others have said, to state that the hair is the headcovering makes no sense of 11:6. I think Paul is saying if a woman won’t wear a headcovering, let her shave a head. But since we know from nature that a woman’s hair is her glory, don’t cut it off, let it be covered. 4. In all the comments to which you posted a reply, you admit you didn’t watch the video but state you’re familiar with the issue. I would like to humbly suggest that you watch the video. Honestly I wish your arguments had been more persuasive because being set apart visually in that manner makes me uncomfortable, but I haven’t found a good justification for ignoring the ordinance thus far. And the more I’ve studied it, the more I’ve become convinced it isn’t just for church, but for everyday. Thanks for your time!

@@jessicawilkinson983 I should post my thoughts again so we can reference them. Also the essay by FA which I can't remember if I posted or not. Thanks for replying. I mostly post on the head covering matter, and that men and women are perfectly equal spiritually.

@@jessicawilkinson983 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. -NASB version If the above scripture means a turban, for example, why would God require the priests to wear turbans? Paul certainly would have known about this and maybe seen it. You shall speak to all the skillful people whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may serve as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of checkered work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to Me. -excerpt Exodus 28 Jesus prayed with something on His head while on the cross. A crown of thorns. And they dressed Him in purple, and after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; and they began saluting Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!” -excerpt Mark 15 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” And having said this, He died. -excerpt Luke 23 ******************************************* At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we? “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much. -excerpt Luke 7 Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone... -excerpt John 12 ************* It can only mean the hair is the covering, as the NASB states here: Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. ********************************************************* 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) ************ No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. Therefore no Old Testament reference available. 1 Corinthians 11 starts with this: ...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you... Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered... So, there was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. There was no time to establish a tradition of a fabric covering. There was no way to "hold firmly to the traditions" because you can't start a 'tradition' in a period of time that is just a few years. ************ If the covering was a physical covering, then hair length is irrelevant. No one would know if the woman had long hair or no hair. ************ Also, if a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before she can communicate with God, that would make the fabric covering an idol. But one could also say it was a talisman I suppose, since a talisman could be an article of clothing. Talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is believed to have spiritual or magical properties. The object will align with your intention for its use. Every time you look at a talisman, your mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes a necessary ritual. ************ There is also an essay by 'FA'. It's about a 5 minute read. The full essay is available if requested. Once again one must keep in mind when reading the essay, that women were not using a fabric covering as a requirement of the Law. So it was not part of the culture then. That is confirmed by the events of Jesus with the 2 women above and also the scriptures that discourage women from braiding their hair. If women were commonly wearing a head covering in public no one would have known about this braiding. Their head and hair would have been covered by the fabric. ...likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,... -excerpt 1 Timothy 2 ESV Do not let your adorning be external-the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear- but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart... -excerpt 1 Peter 3 ESV Excerpt here of post by FA: If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? " If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing?

@@jessicawilkinson983 * Where the problem usually begins… (I) 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, is 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 if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. A typical question from those who are against 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 you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? 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. Here’s something to consider: 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. Think about it. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II) 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 hair that covers the head 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 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. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III) If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? 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 or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. 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. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge 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 ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). 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 also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies 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 but 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’s 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 can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected. (originally posted by FA)

And then saying anyone who says argues that the application of head coverings is cultural is a liberal and a feminist, and you call their Christianity into question? Seriously? So the vast majority of conservative reformed Christians who understand that Paul is giving a cultural application for a creational norm is a liberal feminist who probably isn't saved (as you said, they "claim to be Christians")? And you call _that_ exgetetical gymnastics after trying to argue that "praying and prophesying" = "at all times during Sunday morning worship exclusively"? Not good. Not sure what else to say.

God bless, I hope all is well. The passage is talks about women in general, so yes. To the second question no, there’s several reasons to why not, but that passage is not limited to the church “building” but talking about how women should live in general. I hope that makes sense. God bless and love you sister.

Thanks

Prior to the reformation everyone accepted the necessity of Baptism for salvation (John 3:5). That would be another one as an example

Doubtful, especially as the Bible teaches contrary to that. Careful not to be led astray by our eastern orthodox friend here.

@@horrificpleasantry9474 I am a Traditional Catholic and not Eastern Orthodox. Not sure why you think I am EO

@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad I’d have to concede that most did articulate some sort of idea of baptismal regeneration but you do have folks like John Wycliffe and the Waldensians who believe in justification by faith apart from good works including baptism so the belief in baptismal regeneration still isn’t close to the need to head cover as there is universal acceptance both pre and post reformation.

@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad I guess I just picked up on the wrong thing. You guys are more like each other in most things except the filioque anyway. Maybe I thought your pic was ☦️ cause I wasn't paying attention. Either way I still disagree but I won't misidentify you next time

It would have less to do with the mode and more to do with the condition of your soul. Paedobaptists do credo-baptism,after all -- if you were never baptized as a child but converted and then got baptized, you would get sprinkled. The purpose of baptism is to witness to the fact that you are identifying with Christ through faith. The best picture of that is immersion, because it symbolizes the death burial and resurrection of the Lord as well as your hope in your own thereof. The sprinkling the other guys do is meant to symbolize entering into the new covenant,as the prophecy says,"I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean." I am still reading about baptist covenant theology but I would say you should get baptized because you have not been baptized since you professed faith, not primarily because the mode is not what the new testament teaches. In the hypothetical I described,I would say it's not necessary again, in my current understanding, and if someone wants to chime in to verify or contradict that, please do

If you really insist that you've been saved since you were baptized then fine, according to your conscience it would not make sense to do it again. But I'm personally skeptical of childhood professions, as I was always a confident believer in Jesus but my faith was in vain and I was truly converted at 20. Paul Washer's Shocking Message may help clarify that for you 😏. Besides that I would encourage asking your pastor to help walk you through to find out when you displayed fruit of new life

@@horrificpleasantry9474 thank you for the response! One reason I’m particularly questioning the legitimacy of sprinkling is because IF it was never legitimate, then I would have a clear answer and I should be baptized at my current church soon. But if sprinkling is legitimate, then it really comes down to whether or not my faith at the time was authentic or if I only came to have an authentic faith after being baptized. And that question is much more difficult for me to determine. For as long as I can remember I know I believed in the trinitarian God of the Bible, and I prayed to Him each night, and I knew Jesus died on the cross so that I could go to heaven if I was Christian by putting my faith in Him (though I doubt I could articulate the gospel any better than that simplistic understanding at the time). And though I’ve never considered myself anything other than Christian, I went through a season in high school and early college where I did not show good fruit. While I certainly had sinful habits in my life, I honestly think a lack of wisdom and understanding and good teaching played a big part in why it took me so long to repent. So I don’t think my faith was fake, but I think it was more like a mustard seed in that season. All of this to say, sometimes I feel confident that my faith has always been genuine thanks to my parents raising me in the faith since I was born. Yet other days, I am less sure of WHEN I actually put my faith and trust in Jesus, and whether that was before or after my baptism.

@@hardboard82 that's reminiscent of John 3 where Jesus talks about regeneration like the wind. You see that it's been moving but you can't tell where it came from or where it went. He's teaching that not everyone has a Damascus road experience like Paul, some go through a season and know they're saved at the end but can't point to a date and time when it happened. It's important to remember that your salvation isn't affected by whether or not you choose to get baptized again/for the first time. It would have to do with obedience to Christ. If your conviction is that immersion would be the natural outcome of obedience, absolutely do it. Considering that it is also a witness to others, demonstrating obedience according to what you believe is Biblically right is a good example to others and does not confuse the symbols. I guess I'm convincing myself to lean on this direction as I'm talking,I just don't want to go too far as I pointed out that I can't say for certain that reformed baptists would absolutely counsel thus. But I would indicate this to be likely

@@horrificpleasantry9474 I really appreciate your perspective on these questions. Thank you for sharing your insights!

That’s a great question. I think the text conveys more than just the concept of authority and submission. I think there is the issue of glory. “Woman is the glory of man.” This statement is beyond merely marriage. Therefore, I believe that it applies to single women as well.

You did justice to MacArthur’s position. That’s precisely his view. I personally disagree. First, there is more at play than submission. Glory is a factor as well. Also, the angels spectating is a unique piece of the puzzle that is absent in foot washings.

@@RightResponseMinistries thanks for your reply, that’s a very helpful answer. From what I can gather the position that you hold (is there a name for it?) to be the position of church history, but what I was wondering is do you know when the principle and custom view (MacArthur) and the hair as the covering (d.Wilson) started or became popular? They seem new but maybe they have been around a while too?

@@jordyE.. it could simply be that not a single man on earth has been alive since before feminism, and so our intuition is influenced by the society we grew up in

@@horrificpleasantry9474 thanks for the comment, although I’m not sure I understood it, did you mean that the meaning of 1 Cor 11 is the dangers of feminism?

@@jordyE.. no I mean we're all products of our times, so that not having everyone around us wearing hats makes it easier to intuit one interpretation and harder to believe another. I would attribute the reformers continuing to baptize babies to this phenomenon as well, and the earlier habit of celibacy/monasticism which took even longer to grow out of, as a Church.

The 'covering' is the hair itself. Someone named FA did an essay on Corinthians only. My thoughts are from everywhere else in the New and Old Testament. I post on this matter a lot. NASB here: Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering.

​@@user-iz8np3vv4i1 Corinthians 11:6 For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. Since this is in text, tone may not be properly conveyed, but I do not ask this maliciously: how does this verse reconcile with what you said in your understanding of this subject? Going by that logic, this would be saying: "If a woman is not covered [has no hair], let her also be shorn [hair cut off/shaved]. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved [her hair be cut off or shaved], let her be covered [let her have hair]. I'm struggling to figure out how the former sentence would not then turn the latter sentence into nonsense. No after reading it again I'm quite confident that is incorrect.

@@matthewsouthwell3500 I think 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. According to the Bible if a woman is to cover her head and long hair is the covering (verse 15) then isn't it logical to understand that Paul is saying that the woman is to cover her head in long hair? If a woman is not covered [in long hair meaning it is short], let her also be shorn [hair cut off/shaved bald]. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved [her hair be cut off or shaved bald], let her be covered [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.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Makes a lot of sense, thank you.

​@@user-iz8np3vv4iso a man must shave his head to pray if that's the case

The greek word for hair in this context means something that hangs down from the head. So men are to have short hair, not hanging down from their head and women are to have long hear, hanging down from their head. If a woman were to have short hair it would be as bad as if were to shave all of her hair

His hair also doesn't glorify anything, per Paul's discussion, so his hair being seen is not a problem. Actually you're looking at it wrong. It's not that hair in general is obscene. If so then yeah it would be relevant to the men also. But it's that women should be covered and men should be uncovered. His head should be seen

ALTHOUGH, a church full of chrome domes and full beards paired with floor-length hair would certainly be culturally distinctive and kinda cool

@@BurntBeatz nailed it. Thanks.

Good question. Burnt Beats answered it wonderfully.

Really? I see it completely differently if it was a hat or veil that Paul meant to be the covering then more than half of what he wrote doesn't make sense to me. What I have noticed is that those who think it is mostly about a veil tend to use modern versions of the Bible that have included or replaced words that is not in the King James. Words like assembly, husband, wife, veil, symbol or authority, are not in the King James. So I can see how many people (but not all) who use these modern versions would be confused. Therefore if we go according to the King James we would notice that the word for hair, or words relative to it, are written six or seven times yet not one word like fabric or cloth or even the word veil is written. I've noticed that most who promulgate veils kind of ignore this fact and seems like they hope no one will notice.

@@defendingthegospel721 That is the most glaring thing about it. They see veil, though the words needed to understand that are no where to be found unlike hair which is written several times. Why make a complicated doctrine like veiling when there is so little evidence of it?

Only when entering a Church and during the Mass. Not sure what Pastor Joel will say

I left out, in the 'against' column, that one of the biggest questions is why it would be limited to corporate worship if it is connected to male headship generally and rooted in the created order. It says "when a man prays or prophesies," not "when he leads the congregation." The immediate context is not the church gathering, but what immediately precedes is a discussion on idolatry. It makes more sense to see 1 Cor 11 as a follow-up application of how to avoid the pagan idolatry (hence the cultural comparison of head covering practices) than it does as a church gathering. If the head coverings are creation ordinances, then it would naturally follow that they ought to be worn whenever a woman prays, which is by no means limited to corporate worship but would seem to be nearly all the time, since we ought to "pray always." Since I do not see head covering advocates advocating for head coverings to be 24/7, I am skeptical of the accuracy of the interpretation and wonder if it really isn't just a tradition. This is the biggest hurdle for me personally.

@@horrificpleasantry9474 I have looked at this text as occuring outside of the context of the gathering since within it the women are "praying and prophesying" (which is not permissible "in church" as per chapter 14) and Paul has yet to comment on "when you gather" in this section. I may have to go back and listen to Joels argument because while I was listening to it the first time I was working so I missed a few parts.

@@brettmagnuson8318 I caught that, because it's one of the things I'm still "nyeeh" about with this interpretation, here's what he said: he sees "prays or prophesies" as a synecdoche (like 'heavens and Earth' = universe) to refer to all the activities lumped together that occur during corporate worship. That's how he gets it to be limited to the weekly assembly and not all times. While it would be consistent, I need to verify that there's precedence for that interpretation and I haven't done so yet. But that was an answer, any way, to that question i had. I'm impressed how much I anticipated he would talk about, I guess I have a more comprehensive knowledge of the subject than I thought

@@brettmagnuson8318 in the video he explains why it's not an issue of women taking authority and I didn't have a problem with that.

​@@horrificpleasantry9474 Yeah I think if you're like me you have been driven to studying these passages as a result of the general church culture skipping past them as unimportant or irrelevant and I never want to have that attitude toward any of scripture.

I have my thoughts in a post. There is FA's essay as well that just looks at Corinthians. Let me know if you want more.

...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'.

I think 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.

Abimelech is offering restitution for having taken Sarah. This restitution is metaphorically a “covering of thy eyes” to Abraham and all his house. This means that Abraham should forget the possible injustice (which was done innocently) as though it had never happened.

Well said.

* Why do some say these passages refer only to married people? Now I’m sure some have said saying that the glory of the woman (aka the long hair) was only meant for the husband to see. This belief is not because of some scripture that details this since it does not exist. It is mainly due to bias and misunderstanding of the word “woman” to mean wife. The same can be said for the word “man” to falsely mean husband. Nowhere in the KJV does it say that the woman’s glory was only meant for the husband to see it is completely made up. The words “husband,” “wife,” “marriage” or anything similar are not found but veil promoters will claim that that is what they are referring to. This is a classic case of reading more into what the Scriptures are actually stating. But the way it is structured gives the strong impression that it is referring GENERALLY to ALL men and women and NOT just to married couples. Some people have stated that the words “man” and “woman” are interchangeable for “husband” and “wife” but if we read the context of the passages, we can see that this cannot be the case. For example, verses 8 and 9 delve into the order of creation, which obviously includes everyone whether they are married or not. “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.” Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women. “EVERY man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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.” You will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts if you were to exchange the words above for husband and wife, because then it would seem like all the single men CAN wear a covering or all the single women CAN be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure many veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” On this topic someone once mentioned about “submission” for example “The clearest explanation, Paul’s is referring to a natural cover and a material covering to symbolize her submission to her husband.” Even though there is no mention of the word submission in this topic yet because of the misinterpretation of the word “man” or “woman” they have construed the idea that this passage refers to husbands and wives. But like I mentioned before would not make sense, not to mention the idea of submission which they somehow wrongfully included in this passage. Lastly, how can one navigate these passages correctly if one were to claim that the words they are reading do not mean what they state? How can one tell when they read the word "man" they really mean "a male person" and not “husband” and the same thing goes for the words: woman and wife? If one were to argue they were referring to married couples, then how one can expect anyone to believe what they read? The logical thing to do is to understand what they mean by the context of the verses and in this case, they are referring to ALL men and women.

I have some information. Reply if desired. Also, scripture required the priests of the Old Covenant to wear turbans. Paul would have known this. A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. 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)

@@user-iz8np3vv4i yet the Nazarene vow required men to not cut their hair. If he tells you to judge yourself does this not seem to lead to your own decision and not a commandment. Finally any point addressed in the Bible is covered 3 times at least but this is only mentioned once. This leads me to believe this is about customs and traditions not and more about submissiveness not the act of covering ones head. Also the mention of it being for the angels makes me to believe this is about the roles in the church.

@@jamesharris8903 I am familiar with the Nazirite vow. Keep in mind that it was no longer in existence when the New Covenant came into being. you wrote: If he tells you to judge yourself does this not seem to lead to your own decision and not a commandment. What is below is by another poster. His/her full post can be pasted up should you have interest. As I said, I have some information, (which is mostly outside of Corinthians). "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? 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 or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. (originally posted by FA)

Yes, because a woman is always under authority, either her father or husband. "What if--" if you don't have anyone in your life serving that role because of death or abdication of responsibility, you need to find someone who will fill that role, such as another couple in the church. A widowed woman has charge of her own estate in the ot, but she doesn't cease being under spiritual authority, or the obligation to seek it.

A better way I could've answered is that because it's rooted in the created order and has to do with the glory of woman/man/God, that this applies regardless of relationship status

thank you for your answer

@@horrificpleasantry9474 Where in Scripture does it obligate a woman to seek spiritual authority once her husband passes? Furthermore, where does it permit a couple to have spiritual authority over a widow? A married man’s headship doesn’t extend past his wife and his wife can’t have headship over women whatsoever. That’s preposterous. 1 Corinthians 7:2 (NKJV) “2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.” Ephesians 5:23 (NKJV) “22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.” Scripture specifically states that the husband is the head of the wife, not a couple, her father, a male relative, etc. No man can have headship over a widow unless she has agreed to enter a marriage covenant with him. 1 Corinthians 7:39 (NKJV) “39 A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”

Well no, he points out we all agree she needs to be covered, it's just a question of "with what" and "how often?" The way to be completely safe would be head coverings at all times. Joel tries to limit it to corporate worship by saying that "prays or prophesies" is a synecdoche referring to any activity occurring during the weekly corporate gathering (or prayer meetings, I would suspect, also)

True there is no harm just as there is no harm if they don't right?

@@defendingthegospel721 True

Not really. * Where the problem usually begins… (I) 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, is 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 if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. A typical question from those who are against 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 you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? 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. Here’s something to consider: 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. Think about it. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II) 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 hair that covers the head 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 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. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III) If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? 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 or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. 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. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge 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 ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). 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 also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies 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 but 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’s 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 can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Women in ancient times wore their hair long. I doubt there were women who were cutting their hair. So if the hair is the veil, and almost all the women had long hair, then why would Paul even have to mention it? I think it's just a modern trend for women to cut their hair short. And let's just say that you are correct, and the hair is the covering. Why don't we ever hear pastors teach the women in their congregation not to cut their hair short?

@@nerychristian I agree that women in ancient times wore their hair long. Regardless of your doubt it would seem (according to Paul) that some women were cutting their hair short while at the same time praying and prophesying etc. I don't think it is hard to believe that someone who recently accepted Christ who may still be stuck in their prior religion's belief or custom to have been cutting their hair short. Not saying it everyone was doing it but it was observed that some were and Paul made a note of it. Therefore your sentence does not make sense that if the hair is the veil, and almost all the women had long hair, then why would Paul even have to mention it? Because obviously not all women were doing that and especially if they are recently coming off a false religion. Perhaps there may be more women cutting their hair short today but not necessarily that it started recently. And of course this is besides the point of whether the BIBLE says a woman ought to wear a hat. (I think it should be noted that most people tend to focus on the US as their basis of what women did or did not do and avoid all the other countries of the world which is a grand mistake. As one should look if women of other countries ever cut their hair short.) You noted that if (long) hair is the covering then why don't we ever hear pastors teach the women in their congregation not to cut their hair short? I agree with this just like I would like to know why they don't talk about prophesying or talking in tongues or interpreting them, etc like we read in Corinthians when Paul speaks of those who gathered together and did all sorts of great things. I can go to practically any church and find they do not practice these thing much less preach it. So the lack of following the Bible about many topics should not really be used as evidence.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Umm. no. Now I think you are just making things up. You say that Paul clearly says that some women were cutting their hair short. But I don't see anything in the Epistle that states that this was happening. Quite the contrary. Paul mentions that it is a disgrace for a woman to pray or to prophesy with her head uncovered. If he was merely referring to hair, then why is it only a disgrace when it pertains to praying or prophesying? Is it ok to have short hair any other time? If he was referring to hair, he would state plainly that women should not cut their hair. But obviously he mentions prayer and prophesying because the covering was something that was to be put on when the woman was in the congregation. History also supports this view. Women in ancient times used to wear head coverings, especially if they were married. It's only in recent times that women have stopped wearing head coverings in church. But all throughout history it was always considered proper for a woman to wear a head covering or veil. I mean think about it, even when women have long hair, we can still see their entire face and neck. Wouldn't it make more sense that the reason women were commanded to cover their heads, was in order to prevent men from seeing their faces, so that they wouldn't be a distraction in the church? In ancient times, a veil was a symbol of submission to her husband. Therefore it says in verse 10 " For this reason a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels." We even see this in the wedding ceremony, where a woman has a veil on her head, so that her face is slightly hidden. And once she participated in the wedding, the husband parts the veil and sees her face, and kisses her.

@@nerychristian I am not making things up. You say that you don’t see anything in the Epistle that states that women were cutting their hair short. “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.” "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Paul is asking us to make a judgment in verse 13. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be “uncovered” should mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL should 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? Why should the lack of a veil make a praying woman not have a “pleasing appearance” (aka look comely)? Unless he is saying that an uncovered woman is a woman who is NOT covered in long hair (aka short hair). For sure looking at a woman with short hair does not have a pleasing appearance. In verse 5 it looks to me that Paul is saying that a woman who doesn’t cover her head (in long hair btw) dishonors her head. Sounds like it very likely happened and Paul saw this and was simply pointing out that one should follow the natural order that women ought to keep their hair long. He certainly wasn’t talking about a veil when we can’t find that word anywhere, yet when you check all the pertinent verses you will find the concept of hair written at least 7 times. This issue you have is that you are willing yourself to believe that when Paul says that it is a disgrace for a woman to pray or to prophesy with her head uncovered you are IMAGINING some kind of hat when cover just means cover not a hat or a veil. Clearly long hair is the “covering” of the woman’s head (verse 15) so not all things that refer to “cover” must mean a hat. If you start to think that then you will have a problem understanding every other verse that has the word “cover” when the context is about something completely different. You asked if Paul were merely referring to hair, then why is it only a disgrace when it pertains to praying or prophesying? Paul never used the word ONLY like you are trying to slip in. Paul was just giving a couple of examples not that he was limiting this situation to two moments. When you think about it that would be strange if he meant that. Why say the reason is because of the creation order then? There were no manufacturing of veils or hats either was there a church to claim church rules. If Paul included the creation order as a reason a woman should be covered then it is logical to think that it was important even then. And without veils or hats at the time obviously Paul must have been talking about something natural like hair. . You stated that if he was referring to hair, he would state plainly that women should not cut their hair. But he did in the verses I mentioned the problem is you want to see it differently. Plus I can also argue if Paul meant a hat or veil then why didn’t he simply and plainly state that? I bet you didn’t think of that. Many times when I mention this, veil promoters get stumped and sometimes recognize that this question goes both ways and go on to the next item to prove their interpretation. Paul may be talking about prayer and prophesying but it isn’t conditional. They were just examples and if they were examples then there is nothing that needs to be taken off or put on. That idea has to be assumed as you know as well as I do it does not say anything DIRECTLY about putting on or taking something off. To say that it was something that had to be done in a “congregation” is not true. There is nothing here that refers to a congregation. This is a complete fabrication. After having spoken to many people the typical response regarding where they get this idea is because prayer and prophesying is allegedly suppose to be conducted in a church despite the fact that Jesus said that prayer is to be done in secret. So again this is an assumption and NOT a direct command. Paul was simply saying that doing anything godly like prayer and prophesying a woman should be covered in long hair and men not covered meaning have short hair. Your argument about history is very irrelevant if you read the Bible. You’re basically saying that if a lot of people believed and followed a doctrine for a long enough time that that should somehow prove women ought to wear a veil or hat. Therefore since so many people followed a doctrine they all can’t be wrong. Well like I said if you were to read your Bible more carefully you would find this same situation when it came to temple building. Acts 7:47-51 states how many people for centuries followed and believed in constructing temples yet they were ALL wrong and God was upset about that. Yet he allowed them to do it for a very long time. So I see no difference here that people were wrong about wearing veils as a command for a very long time. And I do not believe that EVERYONE believed this. Recall that God once said he would take away wisdom from the land and also said that his people are destroyed because of lack of knowledge. So let not pretend that this can’t happen unless you don’t fully believe that God can do this. Given all these facts it wouldn’t make sense if Paul was referring to hats or veils. So many other questions pop up that should be considered like why wait until 1st Corinthians 11 to talk about veils? Why wasn’t it discussed in the OT if it was so important? Why didn’t Jesus say anything to the woman who dried his feet with her hair? Why didn’t Paul clearly say veils and offer more information about what that means (length, color, coverage, etc.)? The Bible never mentions that a veil was a symbol of submission to her husband. It doesn’t say symbol, veil or husband in the King James version. This is another reason why veil promoters think that Paul is talking about veils because the modern versions have these words when the KJV does not.

That’s interesting becuase 1 Peter & Revealtions 1:6 talks about we are made king’s & priests

I think it can be deduced by reading the entire passage that Paul is talking about a "covering" separate from her hair. So if it's not with cloth, I don't know what else he would be talking about.

@@Dsquareddyson ...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'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes, scriptures outside of Corinthians mostly Essay by another: post length 7 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary.

can i see the posts?@@user-iz8np3vv4i

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.

Where do you find these traditional catholic chapels? Is there a directory or something?

@@innovationhq8230 there are different orders or societies. For example; I attend the Society of St Pius the Tenth (SSPX) Just google SSPX chapel and you will find them. There are also CMRI, SSPV, FSSP, ICKSP. You could go to their websites and find a chapel location

@@StAnthonyPaduaRadTrad Are there any traditionalist catholic groups that practice plain dress?

@@innovationhq8230 Could you explain what you mean by “plain dress”? I never heard that term

I suggest you re-read about the 'covering'. Or else I can paste something here for you. The hair itself is the covering.

IMO Follow your convictions about what God is telling you

(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.

No, it wasn't 'about the times'. In fact, it was just as counter-cultural then as it would be today. Although this isn't a salvation issue, what is at stake is the heavenly rewards women might get for obedience. Women who refuse to cover their heads when praying or prophesying will suffer loss of standing in the next life, as will those who encourage such disobedience.

I don't think this is about the times. Especially since the reasons for the head being cover particualrly on women given by Paul refer to creationism esp the order (adam first then eve), and the angels part, it couldn't be based on the times or culture. But I agree with user-iz8np3vv4i that the covering being referred to is about long hair. But neither would I subscribe to the idea that one would lose any heavenly reward. That is not biblically provable and actually should not be preached. This is sort of a manipulative way of making others conform to one's interpretation by saying people would lose something. Not wearing a hat is not being disobedient but but being manipulative is.

@@SalvadorVigente The problem with the _long_ hair as a covering idea is that Paul never says long hair is the covering. All he says is that long hair is a woman's glory. When Paul says hair is given to the woman for a covering in verse 15, he uses a different word for the woman's head covering than in verses 5 to 13. You'll see this more plainly if you check the same passage in a translation such as the: ASV, CEV, ERV NAB, NLT, NRSV or RSV. People like user-iz8np3vv4i totally miss the point that the passage in John 12 has nothing to do with Paul's concern - a woman praying or prophesying. The insistence that hair is the covering misrepresents Paul's teaching, makes a tautological mockery of what he wrote, and promotes disobedience. You will soon see the nonsense it makes of what Paul wrote if you apply the logic of the 'hair as a covering' claim to the whole of 1 Corinthians 11:4-15. For example, rewording the NKJV gives: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered _with hair,_ dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head -un- _not_ covered _with hair_ dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered _with hair on her head,_ let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her _head_ be covered _with hair._ For a man indeed ought not to cover his head _with hair,_ since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have _hair as_ a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head -un- _not_ covered _with hair?_ Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a _head_ covering. *---* If a woman's hair is the covering and a man ought not to cover his head, per 1 Corinthians 11:7, logic demands that the man has his head shaved. When Paul refers to a woman's 'long hair' in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, he is merely contrasting its glory with the shamefulness of being shorn that he referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:16.

The Regulative Principle applied to the individual: if there is not a command to DO a thing, we ought to be very wary of asserting that we ought to. Strictly speaking, decorative markings on the skin is "permissible but not beneficial." What is forbidden in the OT is "cuttings in the skin for the dead" - if tattoos are used in religious worship or done for the sake of the dead ("

@@horrificpleasantry9474 I will have to look up the Hebrew, and also the Greek Septuagint, to review the passage you quote, but in NASB 1995 (a usually reliable translation) it reads: "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard. You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord." So, it is not only about cuts for the dead, but also about any tattoo marks. ("nor" any tattoo marks).

@@craigchambers4183 Valid point. Contextually I still think what they're discussing is pagan practices (think about the Egyptian hairstyle you see in the Prince of Egypt, for example, or Rastafarian dreadlocks), and I *believe* what is being discussed with the usage of the word 'tattoo' is different than the modern practice in question. At any rate, me being wrong wouldn't result in a MORE liberal position than what I already presented, that of discouraging tattoos for 3+ Biblical reasons already

@@horrificpleasantry9474 what is the benefit of a tattoo? If someone is getting a tattoo so people can look at them, or ooo and ahhh over it, it’s sinful. So the question is, why does one get a tattoo other than for someone to notice them?

Tats... Nobody brings up the vanity issue here. Ink is made to be seen by others for the most part. Your body was never designed to be a canvas for grafitti, but now we are drowning in it. One tat becomes a whole sleeve, and so on. Not to mention the fact that women look like sluts, and degrades their femininity by being covered in blobs of ink. This is something we must all consider especially when we get older and our skin turns to mush. Also, the scarring that happens when they are removed is horrific.

Exactly

It's true. Wearing a head covering is the ultimate act of submission, because you are fighting against your natural inclinations and desire to be seen by others.

Check out the video. I address that.

prophecy is declaring God's word.. Every time you sing or participate in liturgy, you're prophesying. The pastor's sermon is prophecy. Quoting the Bible in a KZfaq comment is prophecy. Joel's argument re 1Cor11 is that "prayer and prophecy," touching on both halves of godly communication (talking to God on behalf of men, talking to men on behalf of God), is meant as a representative phrase for corporate worship

@@horrificpleasantry9474 exactly right. Thanks!

Yes, because you are still under the authority of Christ. And if you are divorced, then you really shouldn't be going to church to get attention from men.