Great explanation, thank you

1 Corinthians 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head *because of the angels* .

So I have to have my PhD in ancient Roman and Greek culture to understand scripture? If Paul was correcting the Corinthian believers, did this letter not apply to believers in other places? I always was of the belief that I don’t need to be an expert in ancient culture to understand God’s word. Understanding the culture of the time can certainly deepen the meaning of a particular passage, but it will never change the plain meaning.

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

That's not implying anything because that's exactly what it's saying.If a woman does not cover her head while she's praying or prophesying in church she is dishonoring god because she's showing her own glory and not God's glory. Now, it is very, very easy to become legalistic on this.I don't believe wearing a headcovering or lack of thereof is the sin at all. Considering it is a symbol of active obedience and not an ordinance for us it is not a sin when a woman decides not to wear a head covering. With that being said it is something that we are advised to do as women of God. And it is seen as shameful in the eyes of god unless you just believe paul is a liar when he setted himself. This. Doesn't clash with first fifteen at all, In fact, the way many women rate it is that you can still show your hair with a covering on top of your head.Because Paul doesn't tell us to cover our hair.He tells us to cover the top of our heads. So that's how that scripture can be interpreted the right way without a legalistic background. So verse fifteen can be applied to the scripture. You've just. Proven the scripture to be correct, praying or prophesying.Does insinuate that it's something that you can take off and put on. It's something that women don't have to wear all the time unless they feel lead to. See this is the problem that a lot of people refuse to acknowledge is that this bible was not written in the english language and it was written in greek. The term covering in greek is kalypto Which translates to veil Or to conceal something. So yes this scripture just says that it is a veil. See a big problem.A lot of people do not understand is that the english language can have one word.That means several different things. For instance, a covering can be a physical covering a spiritual covering. And many other things but in the greek language it means one thing.. A lot of people who disagree with the head covering movement often refuse to look at the greek translations and it makes no sense to me why people would ignore that when the bible was originally written in greek. In fact, the New Testament in the king James version was directly transliterated from the Greek language, meaning it was taken from the Greek language word by word.So if calypto means to be covered in the english language, it would make sense for it to mean Vale as well.When that is what it means in greek.. The scripture doesn't have to physically say that someone took the veil off.During worship and afterwards it's the same context that would be used when speaking about homosexuality. Christians are obligated to be against homosexuality because it is a sin correct? But the bible doesn't actually mention the word homosexuality , it mentions two men Sleeping in the same bed the Tells us that it's talking about homosexuality. In context in this scripture tells us that Someone is taking a covering off of their head. Exactly.He is telling us that we have always been naturally covered. But that Doesn't take away the head covering movement debate or argument. Because if we naturally cover then we should physically inspirishly , cover as well correct? Paul tells us several times that the only glory that should be showing is the glory of God. The bible also says that it doesn't even nature teach you That don't let me should cover. Saying that we've always Has some type of coverage Talking about our hair. Then he goes to talk about The glory of our hair and how our glory should not be shown. That is where the head covering movement comes into place, Because the only glory that is supposed to be shown is the head of man which is God. And if a woman has hair that is her glory.Then she should cover her glory.Because it in no way should triumph God's glory. Nature itself teaches a woman that she should cover. I agree the only verses that are Referring to physical head and a physical hair is verse.14 and 15, which is talking about the physical covering.But that doesn't take away the fact that the rest of the scripture is talking about a synthetic covering. A lot of women when covering show their hair because of verse fifteen. Which says that a woman who has long hair is a glory to her and her hair is a cover. But the rest of the scripture doesn't say we cover our hair says we cover our heads. That's why a lot of people get confused on the scripture because we're not actually supposed to cover our physical hair.That's why I show my hair.We're supposed to cover our physical heads.Not for modesty sake but for a symbol and a sign. Once again verse fourteen is yes talking about long hair. But we must understand that that is simply saying that we should cover our heads and show our hair out of our headcovthink.Because our hair is still a glory.

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 7… “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.

Men AND women covered their heads in the temple before the Divine Presence in the Holy of Holies. And in synagogue this custom was continued because the scrolls of scripture were brought in because scripture is that which is contained within the Ark of the Covenant, and thereby signifies the Divine Presence. The first Christians continued this Jewish practice because they were Jews, and the Holy Eucharist was even more the reality of the Divine Presence than the Holy of Holies in the temple. Some of the women of Corinth were acting like they were worshipping in the local temple of Diana, and defying common etiquette by removing their FABRIC head covering and speaking out of place like they were in a pagan temple. So in the beginning of Christianity men and women BOTH covered their heads because that was standard Jewish practice because virtually all Christians were Jewish, and men would REMOVE their head covering at THE CONSECRATION OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST because a man removed his head covering to show the common courtesy of acknowledging a superior.

This is what you get when you don't exposit a passage verse by verse

The Greek word for a woman's hair is the same Greek word referred to as Testicle within Greek medical texts. (Parabolion) Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head exposed? Does not even nature (physis) itself teach (didaskō) you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory (doxa)? For her hair is given to her for/ instead of/ in place of (anti) a peribolaion. The Hairs is given to Her instead of (THE HAIR OF MEN?) NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, it must be something only men have and not women.