Should Christian women wear head coverings? | GotQuestions.org 

Read Romans chapter 14 it will definitely help you. When I shaved my left side of my head because of migraines the Holy Spirit immediately convicted me, my hair is my glory as a woman. So I stood in that conviction and let my hair grow and God healed me from migraines. As far a wearing a covering I've had no conviction to wear one so I don't. IF God led me to wear one I wouldn't be opposed to it, but He hasn't so I stand on my conviction to let my hair grow 😊

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion.

If you RU-vid Gino Jennings head covering. Goes deep in scripture and revelation about head covering. He answers your question.

lilabrown type in your web search *enduringword commentary 1 Corinthians 11* *concerning women* The entire chapter is broken down and discussed

Paul mentions two coverings, the natural one which is the hair and the artificial one that shows obedience to the Head. Christian women have been wearing head coverings ever since GOD commanded it through Paul, even as soon as 100 or so years ago. It wasnt until the 1900s that the modern feminist movement attacked GOD's created order and viewed the head covering as a symbol of oppression and in the 1920s the National Organization for Women, or NOW, told women to send them their head coverings to publicly burn them, which they did and sadly they have suceeded in moving many women away from the head covering.

Absolutely, good on you, I too cover when I'm praying, in church or reading the holy Bible.

What denominations do you girls go to? I’ve been searching different denominations for women that actually believe the words of God, instead of these corrupted modern theologians.

I like this . Beautiful

I do cover my head too full time

so ahmed deedat was right, Christian women also need to cover thier heads but most of them choose nudity lol

Yes! That’s right

Yess!!

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

Amen

I believe they wore robes. Surely you’re not saying we should wear robes?

...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. -NASB A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 4 minutes, some scriptures outside of Corinthians. Essay by another: post length 12 minutes, scriptures only within Corinthians Reply for post(s) if desired. They includes scriptures and commentary.

@@8784-l3b 1 Corinthians 11:6 King James Version 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.

@@chloerhodes8593 A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. No fabric covering is mentioned in Corinthians. If a fabric covering is actually required, then all references to hair are totally irrelevant to the subject. It only can make sense if the long hair of a woman is the 'covering'. She should be covered, with her long hair. To have short hair, like a man, means that she is basically bald. Therefore uncovered. ______________________________________________ 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.

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.

Amen! That shows your love for your husband and yourself, but ultimately to God.

It doesn't say when she's reading the Bible. It only says when praying or prophesying. There's a difference.

@@Andrea92_91 okay thanks.

They are referring to short hair not a hat

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion.

@@justinaacuriouswanderer1496 is that what you got from this? I hope your mind is free From this way of thinking.

I'm proud of you, and you're very inspirational. Thank you for sharing this with us.

Thank you for sharing with such transparency. Blessings in the name of the Lord Jesus.

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.

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

Keep wearing your covering dear sister. You are doing great the right thing. Communion is in 1 Corinthians 11, and the church doesn’t consider that to be cultural, so then neither should be head covering, which is in exactly the same chapter.

Followingthe word of God.

If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse 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.

How does anyone believe this nonsense, listen idk who or where you learned the God's Word from, if this is new to you then you've already been greatly deceived and don't have a prayer if your alive when Satan returns with the nephilim unless you repent, (naphi in Hebrew), the fallen angles for Jesus said in Matthew 26:6-38 in that area it will be as in the days of Noah. In Revelation 12 Satan and the fallen angels will return, God shortened the 7yr period to a 5 month period (spilt 7 in half to 2 3.5yr period/ you split the 5 month period up 2 2.5 half months), for the elects sake or no flesh would be saved because that's how good our enemy is that you've let man deceive you like this. I study from and study with those who purely teach God's Word from the Hebrew (OT) manuscripts/ and Greek (NT) manuscripts because if your not doing that then your never going to know. Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are 5 places in the OT where sons of God are mentioned and please check all this out on the Hebrew manuscripts, plenty of sources you can purchase for easy translation to English, such as a Strong's exhaustive concordance, a companion Bible, etc. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan, not literal fruits or nonsense people teach little children in Sunday schools. The angels look like we do and they are coming back as it was before. It's a shame people have been so deceived that they almost make a religious war over women wearing something on their heads. Christianity is a reality, not a religion and friend you need to do your research. I care enough about you and I love God and it pains me to see people so lost when there is real truth out there, people just don't care enough to go check it our for themselves. You go research sons of God in the Hebrew and get back to me. Do you know about the Lord's Day whatsoever, do you know anything when Jesus comes back starting the millennium or anything in Revelation about what will really be going on? Do you really know about the mark of the beast? Hey be careful friend because you may accept it and not even know it if you don't even know your enemy. If that is how you look at alot of scripture (not saying you do), and listen to the traditions of men then Satan's already got you in the bag friend, yet it is not too late,no sir! Sharpen up and get in our Father's Word because He loves you and you have a destiny. Seriously if you have ANY questions at all then just ask me, really man just ask, it's not about you or I it's about almighty God YHVH for He is that He is and im just trying to honestly help you out, choice is yours. Joel 1:1 talks about the 4 stages of the locust, that locust army in Revelation. Have you been taught it? The locust army come during the 1st half of that 5 month period and actual locust have a 5 month life cycle which is from Passover to fall fellowship (thats no accident friend), Noah's flood was a 5 month period. *for the elects sake as I states in the 1st message to you in Mark 13, God did so. The great book of Daniel 9:27 when the abomination, the abdominal one, the desolator it should be- abaddon in Hebrew, apollyon in the Greek, both *names of Satan (God gave us so we couldn't go wrong and apply it to the old and new testament) in *Revelation (meaning the unveiling/ meaning that book literally means from God its all wide out in the open), that when you see that then you know it's been shortened to a 5 month period. I mean Jesus Himself in Mark 13 I believe, id, id have to go look but, go check me out if you want to be sure as well that He said He foretold us all things and Amen you can look that up, means that's that friend. I pray to God that what I have said glorifies Him in helping aid 1 of His children, that's all I want to do and He wants you to open others eyes.​@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter

How does anyone believe this nonsense, listen idk who or where you learned the God's Word from, if this is new to you then you've already been greatly deceived and don't have a prayer if your alive when Satan returns with the nephilim unless you repent, (naphi in Hebrew), the fallen angles for Jesus said in Matthew 26:6-38 in that area it will be as in the days of Noah. In Revelation 12 Satan and the fallen angels will return, God shortened the 7yr period to a 5 month period (spilt 7 in half to 2 3.5yr period/ you split the 5 month period up 2 2.5 half months), for the elects sake or no flesh would be saved because that's how good our enemy is that you've let man deceive you like this. I study from and study with those who purely teach God's Word from the Hebrew (OT) manuscripts/ and Greek (NT) manuscripts because if your not doing that then your never going to know. Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are 5 places in the OT where sons of God are mentioned and please check all this out on the Hebrew manuscripts, plenty of sources you can purchase for easy translation to English, such as a Strong's exhaustive concordance, a companion Bible, etc. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan, not literal fruits or nonsense people teach little children in Sunday schools. The angels look like we do and they are coming back as it was before. It's a shame people have been so deceived that they almost make a religious war over women wearing something on their heads. Christianity is a reality, not a religion and friend you need to do your research. I care enough about you and I love God and it pains me to see people so lost when there is real truth out there, people just don't care enough to go check it our for themselves. You go research sons of God in the Hebrew and get back to me. Do you know about the Lord's Day whatsoever, do you know anything when Jesus comes back starting the millennium or anything in Revelation about what will really be going on? Do you really know about the mark of the beast? Hey be careful friend because you may accept it and not even know it if you don't even know your enemy. If that is how you look at alot of scripture (not saying you do), and listen to the traditions of men then Satan's already got you in the bag friend, yet it is not too late,no sir! Sharpen up and get in our Father's Word because He loves you and you have a destiny. Seriously if you have ANY questions at all then just ask me, really man just ask, it's not about you or I it's about almighty God YHVH for He is that He is and im just trying to honestly help you out, choice is yours. Joel 1:1 talks about the 4 stages of the locust, that locust army in Revelation. Have you been taught it? The locust army come during the 1st half of that 5 month period and actual locust have a 5 month life cycle which is from Passover to fall fellowship (thats no accident friend), Noah's flood was a 5 month period. *for the elects sake as I states in the 1st message to you in Mark 13, God did so. The great book of Daniel 9:27 when the abomination, the abdominal one, the desolator it should be- abaddon in Hebrew, apollyon in the Greek, both *names of Satan (God gave us so we couldn't go wrong and apply it to the old and new testament) in *Revelation (meaning the unveiling/ meaning that book literally means from God its all wide out in the open), that when you see that then you know it's been shortened to a 5 month period. I mean Jesus Himself in Mark 13 I believe, id, id have to go look but, go check me out if you want to be sure as well that He said He foretold us all things and Amen you can look that up, means that's that friend. I pray to God that what I have said glorifies Him in helping aid 1 of His children, that's all I want to do and He wants you to open others eyes.

What's more important: The letter of the Word, or the spirit of it?

Amen 🙏

The book of Corinthians was addressed to all believers in every place. It wasn’t a Corinthian thing at all. In fact, this practice was counter cultural for them.

But Paul addresses the Corinthians specifically in this letter. “Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me…” 7:1 “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you…” 5:1 Etc..

@@jeremyjohnson4106 the books of Corinthians specifically stated that it is addressed to all believers.

@@jeremyjohnson4106 That has nothing to do with eternal truths though. Paul makes clear that his reasoning for the coverings are because of God not because of something limited to only culture.

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

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.

No, but that doesn't mean that everything that was written during that period affects us today. Nor does it mean that the spirit of the rule is more important than the letter of it. You have to look at it in context.

Thank you for sharing this.

Within the realm of this misinterpretation one can find that there exists an OBSESSION to speak about this topic incessantly. Evidence of this can easily be found online whose own channels are inundated with videos on head coverings. Going so far as to elevate it as though they were on some “mystical journey” or that there is some kind of “testimony” to share about it with little to no biblical evidence. Let me be clear, there is NO SCRIPTURAL REASONING to ever think that 1st Corinthians 11 propitiates this level of attention or “sacredness” towards coverings. Whether you think the covering is a veil or hair the Bible does not give allowance to obsess or talk about this subject in such an extreme manner. But of course those who believe the covering to be a veil are typically those who will act somewhat cult-like by basically dedicating themselves to continually refer to head coverings as though this were one of the most important topics of the entire Bible. Such persons often repeatedly state in a very stubborn manner that they don’t care what others think, that they take any negativity as a badge of honor. They often refuse to listen to any biblical soundness because they are already convinced that what they are doing is right. In short they basically close themselves off to any reasonable debate or discussion. Such persons often mention how they FEEL that they are somehow CLOSER to God by SIMPLY WEARING A VEIL, which is akin to those who believe that an inanimate object holds some kind of power like a talisman. Such dedication is similar to Catholics who say the exact same things regarding a scapula, crucifix, rosary or prayer card. For the most part their unwavering attachment to this is based more on EMOTION rather than something biblical. It’s gotten so that some will constantly and needlessly point to this topic in any way, shape or form in their channels. There really seem to be no end to this obsession, from why they wear it, to how to wear it, to talking about how they feel about it or how it has affected others and so on. With all due respect this is truly ridiculous. It is evident that for some this has become a form of fanatic extremism. Not unlike those who repeatedly talk about the Sabbath like the Seventh-Day Adventists or any other religion that over-focuses on one area of the Bible.

Hallelujah

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion.

@@FA-God-s-Words-MatterInteresting. Some in the Pentecostal movement, which I was a part of for many years, have gone as far as to say to lay your long hair over somebody to heal them; that there’s power in long uncut hair. SMH.

God bless you sister!

That isn't meant to be taken literally, though. Obviously, we don't pray when we sleep, listen to someone talk, or comment on RU-vid vids. But, your heart is right, aka I believe God loves that most! ❤

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

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.

Shorn?

The book of 1 Corinthians was indeed addressed specifically to the church at Corinth (v. 2) but certainly the principles that Paul was teaching apply to all believers, and it does seem to me like there are some mental gymnastics done regarding the head coverings issue, though I am still looking into it

@@MechaWingZero the book of Corinthians explicitly states that it is addressed to all believers in every place that call on the name of the Lord Jesus.

@@0Chinese0Arithmetic0 Which verse are you talking about?

@@MechaWingZero verse 2, which you referenced yourself. It states quite clearly “with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.”

I agree you may want to scroll down to where a commentator by the name FA wrote a very concise essay on how the long hair of the woman is the veil.

@@ginaredrovan9217 false

@@marksanders2168 If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil. That such women are either dishonoring God or their own physical head or husband for failing to wear it which constitutes that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. This verse is also often assumed that the women being referred to in some of these verses already have long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though the covering is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, 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, neither a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else we deem fit. In fact, it would seem more like a verb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by the 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 being 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 to wear one and that is when a woman is praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. Allow me to expand on this if you will because this is very important. If you are going to make the argument to prove your point that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible supposedly claims that women ought to wear a veil based only on two conditions, then it is only logical to understand that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one; for example: if the woman is speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should deny this, meaning that the woman should wear their “veil” under other conditions then they would be admitting that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying such an argument. Please note that the belief in women wearing veils for many groups hinges on this “two-condition” argument because if there were conditions then it would seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off. But keep in mind that it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting something on or taking something off. Veil promotors get this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED in the scriptures and not by a direct understanding. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promotor would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” So, if the reason for the man not to cover his head in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying? Should he not be covered under any condition because of this one reason alone? 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 and if so, then why do the same for verse 5? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two conditions, then why would he leave 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.

Did people really view unveiled women as someone shaved? I know this question sounds weird but I’m not trying to be funny, veil promoters have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real-life scenario, based on the idea that unveiled women are equated to being shaved. Imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Did people or Christians really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? Doesn’t that seem odd to you? Given that this conclusion doesn’t make sense one should at least consider that perhaps this is a misinterpretation. But what if “uncovered” means “short hair?” Wouldn’t it fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair)? By doing so then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved or likened to being shaved since it is already short. Doesn’t it make more sense that an “uncovered” woman means a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being “shaven” than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil? In other words, it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven rather than being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman even if she has long hair is somehow equal to being shaved. This is how many veil promotors claim the Bible is teaching regardless of its lack of sense. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. In that case, we should be asking when they are referring to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” is: Are they referring to long or short hair or some kind of head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s the case, then to be uncovered would mean to have short hair. If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" Paul is asking us to make a judgment. Based on what? The only option is based on observation. Therefore, if to be uncovered would mean to be without a veil, then one would have to explain in detail why a FABRIC VEIL would pop up in the average person’s mind when observing a woman praying. Why would you or I look at someone and think that a veil (or any other foreign object) is missing? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is very important so please don’t dismiss it. Be honest with yourself do YOU really believe that the average person will look at an unveiled, praying woman and naturally think a VEIL is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say something like: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head?” after looking at a long-haired, praying woman. To so do would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that the average person would EVER think that a SEPARATE UNNATURAL OBJECT such as a veil would be missing on a praying woman’s head. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “UNCOVERED” were to mean "SHORT HAIR." then it would make LOGICAL sense. For if I were to observe a woman who has a short haircut doing these holy things as we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong: whether it be OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (a.k.a. short hair) while praying or OBSERVING a man having long hair. In addition, by using the word “NATURE” you can’t even use the excuse that perhaps they were expecting only Christians to see something different. Clearly, if “nature” teaches us that something looks off then it must be including all of mankind as nature teaches all of us both Christian and non-Christian. I would like to also add that these verses are NOT jumping from the discussion of a “veil” in verse 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in verse 14 like some would like to argue because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” is to mean “long hair.” Therefore, there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses are referring to hair length. By this, we can understand verse 4 which states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered as I previously mentioned. I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue, due to the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is exclusive to two conditions instead of seeing them as two examples. As mentioned before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. Is it true that those who promote the wearing of veils believe that if a woman is not covered in a veil she should have her head shaved? As similar as it sounds to what we spoke of in verse 5, in this section we are not talking about the equivalency of a woman’s unveiled head to being shaved but about literally shaving a woman’s head. Now I cannot say this for all veil promoters of different sects but I have been told many by veil promoters that this is what the Bible teaches. They base this belief on 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 just as they do with verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone that if a woman has short hair then yes let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shorn or shaven let her be covered in long hair. Yet veil promoters take this verse and have construed it as something of a punishment. The idea is that back then Christian women were disciplined by having their heads shaved. Ok, let’s review this and put this in perspective. So, in verse 5 they believe that an unveiled woman is likened to a person whose head is shaved (which already is illogical), and then in verse 6 they believe that if the woman is not covered in a veil that her hair should be shorn off as a punishment regardless of whether her hair is long? When confronted about this extreme approach in verses 5 and 6 they normally do not deny it, as though this were normal. Yet when explaining that to be uncovered means to have short hair and covered means to have long hair, they make it seem as though it is weirder than their extreme and illogical conclusions. It is my belief that some reach these conclusions mainly because they’ve allowed themselves to be brainwashed rather than having made a careful study of the Scriptures.

right? lol

Why did he have to? When he was here on earth it was a must

A thoughtful analysis. I agree with your questions. BTW there is neither any evident that when he was here on earth it was a must. I wish people would quote scripture rather than making outlandish remarks that have no proof. The main problem with veiling is that Paul was NEVER referring to veils it was long hair. Note the many times he mentions hair directly (3x) then indirectly (4x via the words shorn and shaven) That's SEVEN times now where is the word for veil or cloth? ZERO times. Verses 4- 13 mention cover, uncovered or not covered which are verbs like covering your feet. So they cannot be counted as nouns. It is very simple women are to be covered in long hair and men in short hair.

@@FA-God-s-Words-MatterI appreciate your answer. I currently am studying this topic. I also agree with one of your previous comments regarding how others base it on “how they feel” as if the covering provides some type of supernatural experience. I personally have struggled with this on and off for years. I have occasionally covered for religious reasons, felt it was bondage and now looking into it to see if it was a “maturity” issue, lack of proper education in this matter. I presently do sometimes cover for reasons to protect my textured hair, and give it a break from styling. That can be freeing for anyone but does that translate to a biblical mandate begs the question.

@@Wisdomwaferschannel It is a somewhat difficult passage for sure, at first, but after reviewing the surrounding passages it becomes clearer as to what Paul was conveying. Aside from the "supernatural experience" or what is more commonly referred to as "conviction" what irks me the most is when they abandon the conversation from the biblical merits to something non-biblical like church-history (which is vague even on its own because which church am I suppose to assume is right?) or scholars or the topic of feminism or how it looks good or how inconvenient it is and that a woman is just to simply do it, etc. I would say that 90% of the time people cannot offer a simple exegesis on the words we are reading they always have to introduce other non biblical factors. I've even had women tell me that God literally told them to wear something on their heads. So then suddenly all biblical conversation is shut off. If something supernatural occurs then THAT takes precedence to scripture despite the fact that the scripture tells us not to believe every spirit but to test them. 1st John 4:1-3 So what is the point of reading the Bible and use it to confirm or disprove doctrine as so stated in 2 Timothy 3:16-17? That is why I always ask everyone who believes in the head covering to cite the exact verse that states that veiling is a mandate. Keeping in mind which translation they are using as the newer or modern translations will add words that you won't find in the Textus Receptus or KJ Bible. Most of the time they either cannot or will not and that tells me a lot.

Yes, thank you for expressing this. I thought that seemed off.

...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'.

​@@8784-l3b are you saying Gods word is self Contradictory and God makes mistake in his book? Noted in heresy log book.

@@AntiFurryJihad Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. -NASB A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. If a fabric covering is actually required, then all references to hair are totally irrelevant to the subject. It only can make sense if the long hair of a woman is the 'covering'. She should be covered, with her long hair. To have short hair, like a man, means that she is basically bald. Therefore uncovered.

Obedience to Him is following the instructions given by His appointed apostles. You are not being obedient whatsoever if you refuse to wear the symbol of headship Apostle Paul told you to wear. You’re living in rebellion. You’re doing the opposite of obedience to God.

Can’t access a piece of cloth?

Did you greet your brothers with a holy kiss too?

@@jeremyjohnson4106 The difference is that Paul isn’t speaking of culture in this passage; he is speaking of fundamental and eternal truths that men are the image of God and women are the glory of man. No matter what culture or time period you live in, this doesn’t change. He goes on to mention angels and nature which are also outside of culture.

@@jeremyjohnson4106 I now actually go to an Anabaptist church where we practice the holy kiss: Which, i must say was very hard for me(because of my cultural upbringing) but could not find a way around it; since its taught in scripture(Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:26, 1 Peter 5:14). Also: feet washing like Jesus taught his disciples(John 13:14), practicing modesty and not adorning ourselves with Jewelry(1 Timothy 2:9-10, 1 Peter 3:3-4), not swearing(Matthew 5:34-37) just to name a few. I believe if we love God, we will seek to obey scripture like the Bible asks of us(John 14:15, John 14:21, John 14:23, John 15:14, 1 John 5:2-3, Luke 6:46, James 1:22-25). Even the parts that go against our culture or upbringing, since we are not of this world and are being transformed a new(Romans 12:2, 2 Corinthians 6:17).

@@bkunyiha I was introduced to head covering by anibaptist women, and the first time I was pulled in for a holy kiss, I just had to hold on for the ride! It's something I'd like to start practicing though.

@@blake8820 that didn’t answer his question though, do you greet your brothers with a holy kiss?

A decent book on the subject is Warren Henderson's _Glories Seen & Unseen: A Study of the Head Covering._ Paul's injunction was for men to be bare-headed and for women to cover their head at church. It is important to recognize that Paul is addressing both genders, not simply the women. People today think this injunction is just for women, but that is a mistake. In the first century, many men wore head coverings during religious worship of various gods (depending on the god they worshiped). Depending on the culture, some women wore head coverings in public and would remove them during religious worship. Paul is not dealing with social convention but is telling the Corinthians that in the Christian community, during religious activity men are to be uncovered and women are to be covered. They are silently proclaiming that this Christian community, God's new creation, is following God's order, unlike Adam and Eve who disobeyed God's order.

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.

User (I don't know your name), Paul is dealing with the church, which does things differently than the way things were done in the temple. If you think hair is the covering then you have a problem. All men would be required to shave their heads before praying. Hair at the end of the pericope is being used as an appeal to nature for why women are to wear a physical head covering and why men are not. By nature, women are to have long hair, which acts as a natural head covering, while men are to have short hair. Since everyone in the first century recognized that men were to have short hair and women long, they ought to recognize that women ought to have a physical head covering and men are not.

@@kevinfromcanada4379 As essay below by FA looks at all this in detail: * 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.

@@kevinfromcanada4379 Why would you say if "hair is the covering then you have a problem. All men would be required to shave their heads before praying." Praying and prophesying were just examples Paul was mentioning he wasn't being exclusive. If being uncovered were to mean "short hair" then it makes sense that a man shouldn't have long hair when doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. Please explain what you mean

@@zacharyyogus5013 LOL very good point. I think it's called hypocrisy. Becky if you are reading this there is a very good comment from FA (just scroll down after ordering the comments in the most recent.) It has a complete proof that the hair is the covering and not some fabricated head wear.

@@zacharyyogus5013 If you are sincere about your question, here's my honest answer. 1) Because it's not possible to pray or prophesy in a profile picture (the two times Paul's said women, or arguably, WIVES, should cover their heads). Even if it was possible, I'm not in mine. 2) I'm not married, though I'm still unsure if 1 Cor 11:5 is talking about wives or women. 3) I'm still trying to figure this out and rightly divide.

* Misinterpretations Lead to More Questions and More Problems…. Much of these misunderstandings come from small groups who push the veil agenda because of years of misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Unfortunately, such groups will have to deal with additional complex and logistical matters for example: If it doesn’t say the word “veil” how do you know they are not referring to a hood or a bonnet or any other type of headwear? What are the dimensions of this covering? How can you be 100% sure that your dimensions are acceptable to God? What is the frequency of wearing it? Does location matter? Does color matter? If a woman takes it off because she is going to bed or showering and naturally prays to God without thinking did she commit a sin? Wouldn’t this provoke internal shame and fear having to constantly beg for forgiveness for praying without the veil? So instead of something so simple like maintaining a manly or feminine look by one’s hair now it becomes complex and even a burdensome issue. To expand on my previous question why should a woman wear a tiny veil that covers a small area of the head? Why not cover the whole head? Wouldn’t it seem that they are NOT keeping to their own beliefs? Isn’t it hypocritical to preach to others that women ought to cover their heads when they don’t really cover the whole head? It’s gotten to the point where I’ve even read comments from die-hard veil promoters criticize women who cover just a patch going as far as calling them “disobedient.” Some denominations have their women wearing veils nearly 24 hours a day and that because they point towards the verse that states we are to “pray without ceasing.” Sometimes these same people will say that the verses refer to an item that can be taken on or off and that within the confines of a “church” setting yet will frown upon any of their followers if they walk around without them outside of the so called church setting. Some will use the exclusivity interpretation, as proof that it is a removable item that anyone can do yet their women wear them in a way that they CANNOT be easily taken off. Therefore, it is not an option anymore for some. So let’s put this in perspective. It’s ok to preach that it is a removable veil TO PROVE YOUR POINT to others as it was supposedly meant ONLY for praying and prophesying (meaning you can take it off if one is not doing this) but in practice your women are bound to wear it all the time and everywhere in a way that is not easily removed and is frowned upon if they do so in public. Interesting, seems hypocritical. This misunderstanding also now imposes new and unheard of dynamics that one will not find in the Bible like the purchasing or creation of veils, hats or bonnets, figuring out how to maintain it or keep it well fastened by purchasing various forms of pins or clips since it is not an option to take it off and always being mindful not to let it fall and so forth. Can you see how easy this misinterpretation can lead to an array of issues, which is unheard of in the Bible? * The “Head Covering Journey or Testimony” Obsession…. Within the realm of this misinterpretation one will find that there exists an OBSESSION to speak about this topic incessantly. Evidence of this can easily be found online by those whose channels are inundated with videos on the same topic. Going so far as to elevate it as though they were on some “mystical journey” or that there is some kind of “testimony” to share about it with little to no biblical basis. Let me be clear, there is NO SCRIPTURAL REASONING to ever think that 1st Corinthians 11 propitiates this level of attention or creation of some kind of “sacredness” towards coverings. Whether you think the covering is a veil or hair the Bible does not give allowance to obsess or talk about this subject in such an extremist manner. But of course those who believe the covering to be a veil are typically those who will act somewhat cult-like by basically dedicating themselves to continually refer to head coverings as though this were one of most important topics from the entire Bible. Such groups often mention how they FEEL that they are somehow CLOSER to God by SIMPLY WEARING A VEIL, which is akin to those who believe that an inanimate object holds some kind of power. Such dedication is similar to Catholics who say the exact same things regarding a scapula, crucifix, rosary or prayer card. For the most part their unwavering attachment to this is based on EMOTION rather than something biblical. It’s gotten so that some will constantly and needlessly point to this topic in any way, shape or form in their channels. There really seem to be no end to what they can say, from why they wear it, to how to wear it, to talking about how they feel about it or how it has positively affected others and so on. It is evident that for some this has become a form of fanatic extremism. Not unlike those who repeatedly talk about the Sabbath like the Seventh-Day Adventists or any other religion that over-focuses on one area of the Bible. A perfect example is the recently created “Head Covering Movement,” which is a small group of people trying to “bring back” the supposed custom of wearing veils. These followers have no doubt placed one small section of the Bible to such an unnaturally HIGH level in their lives that they think it requires the formation of an actual organized GROUP. This, ladies and gentleman, is extremism… at it’s worst. Can you imagine that instead of focusing on the gospel they put more effort and concentration on something written briefly in one chapter of the whole Bible and on top of that misinterpreting it? What’s even worse are those who claim that God actually TOLD them or LED them to put a hat, cap or veil on their head. If this is you then I implore you to reconsider by reading the scriptures I have shared and the obsession that is clearly demonstrated in your videos or actions. * False Doctrines Lead to doing the Opposite of what the Bible Intended…. Another example where following a misinterpretation compounds the problem is that it can create an OPPOSITE EFFECT of what the Bible is trying to exhort women to do. For in hiding the hair under a veil the GLORY of the woman is no longer seen and the Bible gives the strong impression that the woman’s hair was meant to be seen. For how can one testify to a woman’s “glory” if it cannot be seen because it is hidden under a hat, bonnet or veil? If one of the purposes of these passages was for the woman to maintain their hair long then there is a complete failure here if you subscribe to wearing veils; because by hiding the hair in a veil (aside from looking like a person with a medical issue) now you look like you have short hair and no one can see this glory. Also, how can you correct a Christian woman with short hair if you cannot even see their hair because it is hidden under a veil, bonnet or cap? So by following this misinterpretation they are now doing the complete opposite of what the Bible is asking believers to do, which in a way is a form of disobedience.

Very helpfull, I have been so confused by this issue with questions that you have pointed out. I appreciate your response ❤️.

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

To say that the “Church Fathers ...unanimously taught ” is not the same level as biblical evidence. Plus, which church fathers are you invoking here? Also if we were to accept your logic that longevity is a factor since you are claiming that such teaching had been going around for years then by your logic you are referring to the Catholic church since they have a long time existence also. The same church that burned people at the stake, fought in wars, believe in works for salvation, that Mary can save also, practice idolatry, belief in purgatory, that the Pope is infallible, etc. But a “church” can’t be wrong for so long a time, right? Well, this and many other churches have been wrong for a long time about many other doctrines. Or are you going to say that every church or church father, from then until now, were 100 percent correct on every single doctrine? You also seem to want people to accept your personal belief that through the mid-Twentieth Century people began to disobey these precepts when feminism hit the West. I can also make a conclusion that during that time more people were likely getting their hands on the Bible and brushing aside all the false doctrines their “churches” were preaching. Then you name names one of which was John Chrysostom. Now let’s read what Wikipedia says about this guy you seem to be admiring. It says he was an “archbishop” of Constantinople. Ok I don’t recall reading that title in the Bible do you?. But the Catholics do. So looks like he basically followed the Catholic church ways. It says he was honored as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran churches, as well as in some others. How can someone accept the idea that a group of opposing sects can dub or honored someone as “saints” when the Bible already stated that all the true believers were saints? It also says that he was exiled though not clear but according to : “Jennifer Barry suggests that they have to do with his connections to Arianism.” Arianism is the belief that Jesus did not always exist but was begotten/made[c] before "time" by God the Father;[d] therefore, Jesus was not coeternal with God the Father, And here I am thinking that Jesus always coexisted with the Father according to the Bible. I could go on but I think I made my point. You are putting too much stock in men. Men CAN be wrong and according to a simple search this guy was religious and followed religious doctrines and man-made rituals. You claim that head coverings are making a comeback but I see the exact opposite in fact a whole group of Mennonites broke from their traditions of head covering and we are talking about thousands of people.

Yet you believe the canon of Scripture to be God’s Word that the early Catholic Church declared (via guidance of the Holy Spirit). You know nothing about the Catholic Church because your Protestant pride has blinded you. You have watered down the Bible to almost nothing, only what’s to your liking. And your crackers and juice “communion” is utter blasphemy. As if Christ would have instituted that. Your “empty traditions” are what we were warned about long ago. And how arrogant to question the earliest Christians who were taught by the Apostles. Scripture came out of the Church, not vice versa. So glad I got away from these protestant churches that keep God in their little box. By their fruits you shall know them…

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) 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

History in some churches does not necessarily make it biblical truth.

@@defendingthegospel721 This is true. It is an individual's choice. Christian liberty.

I’m a Christian teenage girl, and not married. I really want to do it, can I still do it?

@@kayaissimo You can wear whatever you want as long as you don't think you have to. The Bible makes no mention of veils or hats that a woman is under obligation to wear.

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

God doesn't require any head coverings. That's all we need to know. The Ap. Paul was referring to the importance of hair as a distinguishing mark for women and men.

* So 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 long or short hair or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to being covered in LONG hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. Some people will try to complicate this matter by addressing the Greek translation, which we will cover later but if we are to logically make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them. * 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. Again, don’t just dismiss this, think about it. Be honest, does looking at a woman doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. One would have to be literally BRAINWASHED to think that an everyday normal person would EVER think that a SEPARATE 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 see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge (by sight) that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) while praying and by SEEING 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. Also note that it doesn’t say pray…. and prophesy it only mentioned the word “pray.” Why was prophesying not included? Could it be that they were given as mere examples? By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head “COVERED” in this verse refers to “LONG HAIR. ” I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue due the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is being exclusive to two actions instead of seeing them as two examples. As stated before this verse simply states that it is a dishonor if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off, ESPECIALLY in this verse, as it offers no examples or “supposed” exclusive conditions. In this instance it is to be understood that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’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 in the example I gave 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.

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

FA. Wow, thank you for this thorough comment.

The hair itself is the covering. Don't forget about this.

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.

How does anyone believe this nonsense, listen idk who or where you learned the God's Word from, if this is new to you then you've already been greatly deceived and don't have a prayer if your alive when Satan returns with the nephilim unless you repent, (naphi in Hebrew), the fallen angles for Jesus said in Matthew 26:6-38 in that area it will be as in the days of Noah. In Revelation 12 Satan and the fallen angels will return, God shortened the 7yr period to a 5 month period (spilt 7 in half to 2 3.5yr period/ you split the 5 month period up 2 2.5 half months), for the elects sake or no flesh would be saved because that's how good our enemy is that you've let man deceive you like this. I study from and study with those who purely teach God's Word from the Hebrew (OT) manuscripts/ and Greek (NT) manuscripts because if your not doing that then your never going to know. Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are 5 places in the OT where sons of God are mentioned and please check all this out on the Hebrew manuscripts, plenty of sources you can purchase for easy translation to English, such as a Strong's exhaustive concordance, a companion Bible, etc. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan, not literal fruits or nonsense people teach little children in Sunday schools. The angels look like we do and they are coming back as it was before. It's a shame people have been so deceived that they almost make a religious war over women wearing something on their heads. Christianity is a reality, not a religion and friend you need to do your research. I care enough about you and I love God and it pains me to see people so lost when there is real truth out there, people just don't care enough to go check it our for themselves. You go research sons of God in the Hebrew and get back to me. Do you know about the Lord's Day whatsoever, do you know anything when Jesus comes back starting the millennium or anything in Revelation about what will really be going on? Do you really know about the mark of the beast? Hey be careful friend because you may accept it and not even know it if you don't even know your enemy. If that is how you look at alot of scripture (not saying you do), and listen to the traditions of men then Satan's already got you in the bag friend, yet it is not too late,no sir! Sharpen up and get in our Father's Word because He loves you and you have a destiny. Seriously if you have ANY questions at all then just ask me, really man just ask, it's not about you or I it's about almighty God YHVH for He is that He is and im just trying to honestly help you out, choice is yours. Joel 1:1 talks about the 4 stages of the locust, that locust army in Revelation. Have you been taught it? The locust army come during the 1st half of that 5 month period and actual locust have a 5 month life cycle which is from Passover to fall fellowship (thats no accident friend), Noah's flood was a 5 month period. *for the elects sake as I states in the 1st message to you in Mark 13, God did so. The great book of Daniel 9:27 when the abomination, the abdominal one, the desolator it should be- abaddon in Hebrew, apollyon in the Greek, both *names of Satan (God gave us so we couldn't go wrong and apply it to the old and new testament) in *Revelation (meaning the unveiling/ meaning that book literally means from God its all wide out in the open), that when you see that then you know it's been shortened to a 5 month period. I mean Jesus Himself in Mark 13 I believe, id, id have to go look but, go check me out if you want to be sure as well that He said He foretold us all things and Amen you can look that up, means that's that friend. I pray to God that what I have said glorifies Him in helping aid 1 of His children, that's all I want to do and He wants you to open others eyes.

​@@YeshuaMessiah777Eye opening claims there, could you elaborate on the mark of the beast?

@@agentsbf969 the shortest simplistic way I could put it would be that who are those with the seal of God in their foreheads (meaning your mind)? God's elect, those who know the whole truth and are not deceived by Satan now or then because we know he is a fake and we know he comes first and we consider him to be an abomination. The mark of the beast in Revelation 13:16-17 either in your hand or on your forehead means (the forehead ill start first) -> those without the truth have accepted it, then as for the hand (meaning you work with your hands/ do work with), are those who are doing work for him beast. You might say well this is a good ole church right over yonder here and id say good Christian people who have believed in a lie, fell for the deception because they are not digging in God's Word in the manuscripts (original language to have that appetite of the deeper student), they are biblical illiterate to the point that they don't know if they're being lied to and because they've never been taught, judgement starts at the poolpit and I thank God it does because many false teaching and traditions of men have turned the Bethels meaning house of God into Bethavens meaning house of not or emptiness and they think he is Jesus and deliver you up to death which is to say the devil, Satan and are doing the work for the beast and not even know it thinking they're serving Christ. Agent BF that is how people have accepted it already and will accept it, you'll really see that and it will be very sad to see people we love as Revelation states the whole world will whore after him. The thing is about other religions is when he shows up they're gunna think it's their man, or their god. I love you brother, God bless.

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

He doesn’t make the argument that it only means hair

@@jeremyjohnson4106 “It is not something that should be used to judge spirituality.” He makes it seem as though not wearing a head covering and short or shaved hair aren’t equated as equally disobedient. Paul’s reasoning isn’t because of the culture but because of both nature and angels. These are not limited to time or culture.

"If not wearing a veil is just as bad as cutting your hair short or shaving it, then you should wear a veil." That has to be the most foolish thing I have ever read. The correlation makes no sense. Now if having the head uncovered means "short hair" then the correlation makes sense. Seeing a woman with short hair would be relatable to having their head "shaven." No one looks at a woman with long flowing hair with no veil and says to themselves: "Oh yeah she's not wearing a veil therefore it's just like being shaven." You'd have to be extremely brain washed to think this. There is a false assumption that the verses in question refer to women who already have their heads covered. When reading verse 5 they are addressing those women whose heads are not covered meaning that they do not have long hair. “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.” Therefore ONLY those whose heads are uncovered is this verse referring to. The “already covered head” misinterpretation is what many of those who push for veils try to convince others of believing. Clearly this is not the case. As further proof in this one verse alone the women who are “uncovered” are equated with being as if they were shaven, therefore if we were to see a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying who would think in their right mind that because she not wearing a veil that it would be somehow equate to being shaved. That is illogical and ludicrous. But if we see the same woman with a man’s haircut then we can easily make the comparison of why this would be viewed as if she were shaven. This veil issue normally stems from a few denominations (and only a few) who adhere to the belief that it refers to an actual veil and want others to see what they see. . Putting aside the godly order that is set within men and women for a moment and focusing on the topic of wearing a veil it should be evident that the passages refer to long hair and short hair. It says so in verse 15 "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" The "covering" therefore referred to in the earlier verses like 4, 5 and 6 makes sense in that when it says that it is shameful for a man to pray or prophesy with is head covered and for the women uncovered. Meaning it is obviously wrong for men to be having hair like a woman or a woman to have hair like a man while praying and so on. It also asks you make a judgment call as if one should naturally see a problem because it asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" in verse 13. How or why would anyone possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying without a fabric veil on their head to be wrong? Looking at someone doing this does not automatically or naturally create a thought that a veil is missing. No one would be thinking "Yeah she is missing a veil on her head.” That would be ludicrous. There is no natural reasoning to make such a judgment. But if it is understood to mean "short hair" like a man then it would make perfect sense. If I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things then I can naturally judge that there is something wrong here and that it doesn't look right. The next verse continues this supposed obvious and natural understanding regarding hair length because it states: "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." So given all this, how can one conclude that they are referring to a cloth or veil? How can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil there is something off. It makes no logical sense. No one does this. I’ve never seen or heard anyone make such remarks. Therefore the whole veil doctrine is wrong and cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

@@defendingthegospel721 Hey. Thanks for your comment. You seem to not be understanding my point. I’m not arguing that the long hair isn’t a covering. I’m arguing that Paul uses both veils and long hair to describe the two different ways a woman should be covered. If you read verse 6, which is the verse I used in my comment, it is clear that Paul is referring to a veil. Look at the beginning of the verse again: “For if a woman will NOT COVER her head, then she SHOULD CUT her HAIR SHORT. But since it IS DISGRACEFUL for a woman to CUT OFF her HAIR…” Saying that this is a brainwashed view doesn’t make sense when Paul clearly makes a distinction between “not covering” your hair and cutting it short. They are two separate things in this verse, meaning that Paul is referring to a veil. In later verses, I am not disagreeing with you that long hair is one of the two requirements. Paul uses an example of nature to show that even nature itself agrees with the long hair part. Obviously Paul isn’t going to use a veil in this verse because he is talking about nature, which doesn’t involve veils, to prove one of the two requirements. He already explained in verse 6 that a veil is also needed. If you do respond to this, I’d like you to make a counter argument specifically for the verse that I used.

@@defendingthegospel721 To add on to my first reply, let’s try out your view in the beginning of verse 6 for argument sake. “For if a woman already has her hair cut short, then she should cut her hair short.” That makes 0 sense. Let’s try the other way. “For if a woman doesn’t wear a veil, then she should cut her hair short.” The second option is the only one that makes sense.

I would like to preface this topic by addressing the importance of using the correct version of the Bible. It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the version one is referencing. For example, if we focus on the chapter where this doctrine is almost entirely derived from, 1st Corinthians 11, in the King James Version (KJV) you’ll see the word “cover” where some modern versions have translated it to “veil,” when it shouldn’t. Why? Mainly, because the definition of a “cover” is not exclusively interpreted as a veil, neither a hat nor a bonnet, etc. Some versions also use a variety of other words not found in this passage in the KJV like the words: “symbol,” “sign of authority,” “veiled,” “unveiled,” “public worship,” “wear,” “assembly” etc. Also, some versions use the words “wife” and “husband” whereas the KJV and other Bibles use the words “woman” and “man.” As a result of this some people believe the chapter refers only to married couples, but that is not how it is understood in the KJV. A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of this chapter. Therefore, I would like to use the King James Version in this matter, as I have done extensive research about bible versions and have found it to be the strongest and purest version of what the writers of the Bible were trying to convey. In addition, I will be mainly focusing on the woman’s side of this topic and that is because when it comes to head coverings the focus is usually on how women ought to wear something on their heads whereas men do not. But I will interject a quick discussion on the men’s side of this because there are false beliefs surrounding this topic for them as well. * The verse that pretty much started it all… 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.

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

Your crackers and juice is the blasphemy. The earliest of Christians always believed in the body and blood of Christ. But stick to your 500-year-old belief system if you wish. The early Christians would not even have considered you a Christian because you do not believe in the body and blood. Your “pastors” set the temperature for you protestants, and never discusses church history because it’s not in line with what they want you to know.

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion.

​@@justinaacuriouswanderer1496men and women are not same that's ur double standard now go cry about it.

How does anyone believe this nonsense, listen idk who or where you learned the God's Word from, if this is new to you then you've already been greatly deceived and don't have a prayer if your alive when Satan returns with the nephilim unless you repent, (naphi in Hebrew), the fallen angles for Jesus said in Matthew 26:6-38 in that area it will be as in the days of Noah. In Revelation 12 Satan and the fallen angels will return, God shortened the 7yr period to a 5 month period (spilt 7 in half to 2 3.5yr period/ you split the 5 month period up 2 2.5 half months), for the elects sake or no flesh would be saved because that's how good our enemy is that you've let man deceive you like this. I study from and study with those who purely teach God's Word from the Hebrew (OT) manuscripts/ and Greek (NT) manuscripts because if your not doing that then your never going to know. Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are 5 places in the OT where sons of God are mentioned and please check all this out on the Hebrew manuscripts, plenty of sources you can purchase for easy translation to English, such as a Strong's exhaustive concordance, a companion Bible, etc. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan, not literal fruits or nonsense people teach little children in Sunday schools. The angels look like we do and they are coming back as it was before. It's a shame people have been so deceived that they almost make a religious war over women wearing something on their heads. Christianity is a reality, not a religion and friend you need to do your research. I care enough about you and I love God and it pains me to see people so lost when there is real truth out there, people just don't care enough to go check it our for themselves. You go research sons of God in the Hebrew and get back to me. Do you know about the Lord's Day whatsoever, do you know anything when Jesus comes back starting the millennium or anything in Revelation about what will really be going on? Do you really know about the mark of the beast? Hey be careful friend because you may accept it and not even know it if you don't even know your enemy. If that is how you look at alot of scripture (not saying you do), and listen to the traditions of men then Satan's already got you in the bag friend, yet it is not too late,no sir! Sharpen up and get in our Father's Word because He loves you and you have a destiny. Seriously if you have ANY questions at all then just ask me, really man just ask, it's not about you or I it's about almighty God YHVH for He is that He is and im just trying to honestly help you out, choice is yours. Joel 1:1 talks about the 4 stages of the locust, that locust army in Revelation. Have you been taught it? The locust army come during the 1st half of that 5 month period and actual locust have a 5 month life cycle which is from Passover to fall fellowship (thats no accident friend), Noah's flood was a 5 month period. *for the elects sake as I states in the 1st message to you in Mark 13, God did so. The great book of Daniel 9:27 when the abomination, the abdominal one, the desolator it should be- abaddon in Hebrew, apollyon in the Greek, both *names of Satan (God gave us so we couldn't go wrong and apply it to the old and new testament) in *Revelation (meaning the unveiling/ meaning that book literally means from God its all wide out in the open), that when you see that then you know it's been shortened to a 5 month period. I mean Jesus Himself in Mark 13 I believe, id, id have to go look but, go check me out if you want to be sure as well that He said He foretold us all things and Amen you can look that up, means that's that friend. I pray to God that what I have said glorifies Him in helping aid 1 of His children, that's all I want to do and He wants you to open others eyes.

How does anyone believe this nonsense, listen idk who or where you learned the God's Word from, if this is new to you then you've already been greatly deceived and don't have a prayer if your alive when Satan returns with the nephilim unless you repent, (naphi in Hebrew), the fallen angles for Jesus said in Matthew 26:6-38 in that area it will be as in the days of Noah. In Revelation 12 Satan and the fallen angels will return, God shortened the 7yr period to a 5 month period (spilt 7 in half to 2 3.5yr period/ you split the 5 month period up 2 2.5 half months), for the elects sake or no flesh would be saved because that's how good our enemy is that you've let man deceive you like this. I study from and study with those who purely teach God's Word from the Hebrew (OT) manuscripts/ and Greek (NT) manuscripts because if your not doing that then your never going to know. Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are 5 places in the OT where sons of God are mentioned and please check all this out on the Hebrew manuscripts, plenty of sources you can purchase for easy translation to English, such as a Strong's exhaustive concordance, a companion Bible, etc. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan, not literal fruits or nonsense people teach little children in Sunday schools. The angels look like we do and they are coming back as it was before. It's a shame people have been so deceived that they almost make a religious war over women wearing something on their heads. Christianity is a reality, not a religion and friend you need to do your research. I care enough about you and I love God and it pains me to see people so lost when there is real truth out there, people just don't care enough to go check it our for themselves. You go research sons of God in the Hebrew and get back to me. Do you know about the Lord's Day whatsoever, do you know anything when Jesus comes back starting the millennium or anything in Revelation about what will really be going on? Do you really know about the mark of the beast? Hey be careful friend because you may accept it and not even know it if you don't even know your enemy. If that is how you look at alot of scripture (not saying you do), and listen to the traditions of men then Satan's already got you in the bag friend, yet it is not too late,no sir! Sharpen up and get in our Father's Word because He loves you and you have a destiny. Seriously if you have ANY questions at all then just ask me, really man just ask, it's not about you or I it's about almighty God YHVH for He is that He is and im just trying to honestly help you out, choice is yours. Joel 1:1 talks about the 4 stages of the locust, that locust army in Revelation. Have you been taught it? The locust army come during the 1st half of that 5 month period and actual locust have a 5 month life cycle which is from Passover to fall fellowship (thats no accident friend), Noah's flood was a 5 month period. *for the elects sake as I states in the 1st message to you in Mark 13, God did so. The great book of Daniel 9:27 when the abomination, the abdominal one, the desolator it should be- abaddon in Hebrew, apollyon in the Greek, both *names of Satan (God gave us so we couldn't go wrong and apply it to the old and new testament) in *Revelation (meaning the unveiling/ meaning that book literally means from God its all wide out in the open), that when you see that then you know it's been shortened to a 5 month period. I mean Jesus Himself in Mark 13 I believe, id, id have to go look but, go check me out if you want to be sure as well that He said He foretold us all things and Amen you can look that up, means that's that friend. I pray to God that what I have said glorifies Him in helping aid 1 of His children, that's all I want to do and He wants you to open others eyes.

And many are submissive on the outside and not the inside. God is after our heart ❤

@@KH-hc6sy Faith without works is dead.

@@VaradiAttila you need both

How does anyone believe this nonsense, listen idk who or where you learned the God's Word from, if this is new to you then you've already been greatly deceived and don't have a prayer if your alive when Satan returns with the nephilim unless you repent, (naphi in Hebrew), the fallen angles for Jesus said in Matthew 26:6-38 in that area it will be as in the days of Noah. In Revelation 12 Satan and the fallen angels will return, God shortened the 7yr period to a 5 month period (spilt 7 in half to 2 3.5yr period/ you split the 5 month period up 2 2.5 half months), for the elects sake or no flesh would be saved because that's how good our enemy is that you've let man deceive you like this. I study from and study with those who purely teach God's Word from the Hebrew (OT) manuscripts/ and Greek (NT) manuscripts because if your not doing that then your never going to know. Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are 5 places in the OT where sons of God are mentioned and please check all this out on the Hebrew manuscripts, plenty of sources you can purchase for easy translation to English, such as a Strong's exhaustive concordance, a companion Bible, etc. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan, not literal fruits or nonsense people teach little children in Sunday schools. The angels look like we do and they are coming back as it was before. It's a shame people have been so deceived that they almost make a religious war over women wearing something on their heads. Christianity is a reality, not a religion and friend you need to do your research. I care enough about you and I love God and it pains me to see people so lost when there is real truth out there, people just don't care enough to go check it our for themselves. You go research sons of God in the Hebrew and get back to me. Do you know about the Lord's Day whatsoever, do you know anything when Jesus comes back starting the millennium or anything in Revelation about what will really be going on? Do you really know about the mark of the beast? Hey be careful friend because you may accept it and not even know it if you don't even know your enemy. If that is how you look at alot of scripture (not saying you do), and listen to the traditions of men then Satan's already got you in the bag friend, yet it is not too late,no sir! Sharpen up and get in our Father's Word because He loves you and you have a destiny. Seriously if you have ANY questions at all then just ask me, really man just ask, it's not about you or I it's about almighty God YHVH for He is that He is and im just trying to honestly help you out, choice is yours. Joel 1:1 talks about the 4 stages of the locust, that locust army in Revelation. Have you been taught it? The locust army come during the 1st half of that 5 month period and actual locust have a 5 month life cycle which is from Passover to fall fellowship (thats no accident friend), Noah's flood was a 5 month period. *for the elects sake as I states in the 1st message to you in Mark 13, God did so. The great book of Daniel 9:27 when the abomination, the abdominal one, the desolator it should be- abaddon in Hebrew, apollyon in the Greek, both *names of Satan (God gave us so we couldn't go wrong and apply it to the old and new testament) in *Revelation (meaning the unveiling/ meaning that book literally means from God its all wide out in the open), that when you see that then you know it's been shortened to a 5 month period. I mean Jesus Himself in Mark 13 I believe, id, id have to go look but, go check me out if you want to be sure as well that He said He foretold us all things and Amen you can look that up, means that's that friend. I pray to God that what I have said glorifies Him in helping aid 1 of His children, that's all I want to do and He wants you to open others eyes.

you wrote: Culture does have to do with a lot of commandments in scripture. Both in the OT and NT. If it doesn’t, then women shouldn’t have the right to vote, own property, or have her word admissible in court just as it was in Biblical times. I'm tired, so maybe missing your point here. Women in the Old Covenant could buy and own land as scripture says. I have an essay, posted by another, that explains quite well that the covering for women is the hair itself. I'll paste if desired. As far as a woman having authority over a man...I suggest you read Judges 4 and Deborah's authority over Barak. He was the commander of Israel's army of 10,000. Prophetesses are above teachers, according to the New Testament. Phoebe was a deacon.

It’s not about what we feel or how we thing God never changes and it’s his way not ours

@@youtubescoop2286 I never said anything about feelings, and I agree with you about that. As you should have read in my comment, I wasn’t putting society above scripture either.However, customs DID change, and legalism tends to be at the core of this issue. We are to cloth ourselves in humility and modest dress, but all Paul had to work with at the time was what women were wearing 2,000 years ago to make an example of. God doesn’t change, His word does not change. This modesty issue has turned into a legalistic issue without common sense and without lining the words up with reasons, intentions, and with the other scripture that is mentioned about it too. It has nothing to do with feelings and you’re out of place for using that as an argument where you found no evidence of that.

@@8784-l3b I’m referring to specifically the authority over a man in regards to the church. Everyone uses Deborah as the go-to for women’s roles, but this was an isolated incident, specific in the OT for a specific time with Israel. Women are not to have authority over men in their homes or in the church. This is my point. I would’ve responded 6 months ago, but I didn’t see it until now. Oops!

@@kellyanne7225 Thanks for replying. __________________________________________ ...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 suggest my short and free essay on Deborah. Men and women are perfectly equal spiritually. A Judge was a pastor, according to scripture. A Judge could judge homicide cases, according to scripture. There are no 'roles' in the New Covenant. Reply if desired. P.S. I don't get about 10%-20% of my notifications. Maybe you didn't get one about me.

How does anyone believe this nonsense, listen idk who or where you learned the God's Word from, if this is new to you then you've already been greatly deceived and don't have a prayer if your alive when Satan returns with the nephilim unless you repent, (naphi in Hebrew), the fallen angles for Jesus said in Matthew 26:6-38 in that area it will be as in the days of Noah. In Revelation 12 Satan and the fallen angels will return, God shortened the 7yr period to a 5 month period (spilt 7 in half to 2 3.5yr period/ you split the 5 month period up 2 2.5 half months), for the elects sake or no flesh would be saved because that's how good our enemy is that you've let man deceive you like this. I study from and study with those who purely teach God's Word from the Hebrew (OT) manuscripts/ and Greek (NT) manuscripts because if your not doing that then your never going to know. Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are 5 places in the OT where sons of God are mentioned and please check all this out on the Hebrew manuscripts, plenty of sources you can purchase for easy translation to English, such as a Strong's exhaustive concordance, a companion Bible, etc. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan, not literal fruits or nonsense people teach little children in Sunday schools. The angels look like we do and they are coming back as it was before. It's a shame people have been so deceived that they almost make a religious war over women wearing something on their heads. Christianity is a reality, not a religion and friend you need to do your research. I care enough about you and I love God and it pains me to see people so lost when there is real truth out there, people just don't care enough to go check it our for themselves. You go research sons of God in the Hebrew and get back to me. Do you know about the Lord's Day whatsoever, do you know anything when Jesus comes back starting the millennium or anything in Revelation about what will really be going on? Do you really know about the mark of the beast? Hey be careful friend because you may accept it and not even know it if you don't even know your enemy. If that is how you look at alot of scripture (not saying you do), and listen to the traditions of men then Satan's already got you in the bag friend, yet it is not too late,no sir! Sharpen up and get in our Father's Word because He loves you and you have a destiny. Seriously if you have ANY questions at all then just ask me, really man just ask, it's not about you or I it's about almighty God YHVH for He is that He is and im just trying to honestly help you out, choice is yours. Joel 1:1 talks about the 4 stages of the locust, that locust army in Revelation. Have you been taught it? The locust army come during the 1st half of that 5 month period and actual locust have a 5 month life cycle which is from Passover to fall fellowship (thats no accident friend), Noah's flood was a 5 month period. *for the elects sake as I states in the 1st message to you in Mark 13, God did so. The great book of Daniel 9:27 when the abomination, the abdominal one, the desolator it should be- abaddon in Hebrew, apollyon in the Greek, both *names of Satan (God gave us so we couldn't go wrong and apply it to the old and new testament) in *Revelation (meaning the unveiling/ meaning that book literally means from God its all wide out in the open), that when you see that then you know it's been shortened to a 5 month period. I mean Jesus Himself in Mark 13 I believe, id, id have to go look but, go check me out if you want to be sure as well that He said He foretold us all things and Amen you can look that up, means that's that friend. I pray to God that what I have said glorifies Him in helping aid 1 of His children, that's all I want to do and He wants you to open others eyes.

"If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before prayers, or of course, be bald." Funny but the problem is a misinterpretation of the word "covered" and "uncovered." If the woman was given hair for a covering and that it is a shame for her to be UNcovered and that it is a shame for a man to have long hair which correlates with the earlier verse that if his head is Covered is in dishonor then we are talking about short and long hair. if having the head uncovered means "short hair" then the correlation makes sense. Seeing a woman with short hair would be relatable to having their head "shaven." No one looks at a woman with long flowing hair with no veil and says to themselves: "Oh yeah she's not wearing a veil therefore it's just like being shaven." You'd have to be extremely brain washed to think this. There is a false assumption that the verses in question refer to women who already have their heads covered. When reading verse 5 they are addressing those women whose heads are not covered meaning that they do not have long hair. “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.” Therefore ONLY those whose heads are uncovered is this verse referring to. The “already covered head” misinterpretation is what many of those who push for veils try to convince others of believing. Clearly this is not the case. As further proof in this one verse alone the women who are “uncovered” are equated with being as if they were shaven, therefore if we were to see a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying who would think in their right mind that because she not wearing a veil that it would be somehow equate to being shaved. That is illogical and ludicrous. But if we see the same woman with a man’s haircut then we can easily make the comparison of why this would be viewed as if she were shaven. This veil issue normally stems from a few denominations (and only a few) who adhere to the belief that it refers to an actual veil and want others to see what they see. . Putting aside the godly order that is set within men and women for a moment and focusing on the topic of wearing a veil it should be evident that the passages refer to long hair and short hair. It says so in verse 15 "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" The "covering" therefore referred to in the earlier verses like 4, 5 and 6 makes sense in that when it says that it is shameful for a man to pray or prophesy with is head covered and for the women uncovered. Meaning it is obviously wrong for men to be having hair like a woman or a woman to have hair like a man while praying and so on. It also asks you make a judgment call as if one should naturally see a problem because it asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" in verse 13. How or why would anyone possibly come up with judgment that a woman praying or prophesying without a fabric veil on their head to be wrong? Looking at someone doing this does not automatically or naturally create a thought that a veil is missing. No one would be thinking "Yeah she is missing a veil on her head.” That would be ludicrous. There is no natural reasoning to make such a judgment. But if it is understood to mean "short hair" like a man then it would make perfect sense. If I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things then I can naturally judge that there is something wrong here and that it doesn't look right. The next verse continues this supposed obvious and natural understanding regarding hair length because it states: "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." So given all this, how can one conclude that they are referring to a cloth or veil? How can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil there is something off. It makes no logical sense. No one does this. I’ve never seen or heard anyone make such remarks. Therefore the whole veil doctrine is wrong and cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

@@defendingthegospel721 stated " This veil issue normally stems from a few denominations (and only a few) who adhere to the belief that it refers to an actual veil " Yes! it does refer to a veiling of the woman. "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". 1 Cor 11:5-6 (KJV) **[From (Kata) and (Kalupto); To cover wholly, i.e. VEIL:- cover, hide. -Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary]

@@defendingthegospel721 My friend, there are two head coverings in 1Cor 11-a artificial covering (a veil or hat) and a natural covering (hair). This is easily demonstrated if you substitute "covering" for "long hair." For instance, in 1Cor 11:5 we would read: "but every woman who prays or prophesies with short hair dishonors her head, since it is the same as if she had short hair." Do you see how the verse becomes nonsense? Go on to v. 6: "For if a woman will not have long hair, then she should cut her hair short..." How does this make sense? If she doesn't have long hair, then it is already short-it is nonsense to tell her to cut her hair short if it is already short. What is the symbol of authority on her head (v. 10)? Her hair? No, it is the artificial covering (a veil or hat) that women wear during the cultic gathering of Christians. This is how the early Christians understood it. For instance, the church father Irenaeus substituted "veil" (κάλυμμα) for "authority" (ἐξουσίαν) in his quotation of v. 10 because he thought that's what it meant. He quoted the verse like this: "A woman ought to have a *veil* upon her head, because of the angels." Paul's statement regarding hair (the natural covering) in v. 15 is to bolster his argument regarding the artificial covering. The fact that nature shows that women ought to have a natural covering and men ought not, is used as an argument for Paul to demonstrate that women ought to have an artificial covering on their heads and men ought not to have an artificial covering on their heads during the cultic gathering.

@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 "Yes! it does refer to a veiling of the woman." No! It does not refer to a veiling of the woman" "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." Covering = Long Hair. - From the Holy Bible-KJV. The Bible is already defining what they mean by covering. No need to guess or look something up. Choosing not to use the context of the Bible is usually the problem with all misinterpretations.

@@defendingthegospel721 As mentioned elsewhere..... Corinthians 11:6 is the key verse. If a woman has no covering while assembling or praying then her hair should be cut off. So hair and the covering cannot be the same thing. Indeed, this is proven by the man not to have a 'covering' on his head when praying to God. If the hair was the 'covering' then he would have to cut off his hair each time before praying, or of course, be bald.

I agree which is likely that they are misinterpreting the scriptures. The problem is that the host along with others here want to see the covering as a veil when the word veil is not there. People want you to see veil when they show you the word covering. The Bible states that the covering is long hair, not some piece of cloth. "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" 1st Corinthians 11:15 Long hair is the covering. Also it would seem silly if people were to apply a fabric veil to the following verses. "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:13-14. Two questions asking us to Judge and naturally see something wrong by mere observation. Are we to somehow naturally come to a conclusion that a woman with long hair is missing a separate physical object on their head by mere observation? Now, unless they mean short hair when they refer to "uncovered," which would make sense because one can visually make a judgement call that a short haired woman doesn't look right. Now if the covering is long hair (which is synonymous with cover or covered) according to verse 15 then uncovered should mean short hair. Once you reread the passages with this understanding it starts to make sense.

Good that in this passage, even angels are referred to, not just God or men.

I agree with 100% The real issue is the misinterpretation of scripture. There are some who, no matter how much you show them it isn't, believe wholeheartedly that Paul is speaking about veils. The word veils isn't there or hat. But we do read the words Long Hair, Shorn and Shaven all written twice in the KJV. The idea Paul was saying is that women ought to cover their heads with long hair and men not to. In other words covered and uncovered.

The second covering theory is an unfortunate theory that just messes up the actual message that Paul was trying to convey. Aside from the logic that there would be no need for a second covering the facts are that the word veil is not used, the words long hair, shorn and shaven are used twice, the fact that Paul asks us to make a judgment solely based on observation that if it looks right if a woman prays uncovered. He couldn't mean a veil because he is saying as though it should be innate. A praying woman without a veil shouldn't make anyone think twice. But if he mean a woman NOT covered in long hair (meaning like a manly haircut) then we can say that it does look off. We are accustomed to seeing women with long hair that a woman praying in short hair would look uncomely.

Correct. I wear a head covering when in church, praying or reading the holy Bible

so its only during worships?

God is cruel right😢force woman to do what she doesn't want. God is sexist in Bible.

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion. About culture, Paul himself said in 1 corinthian 13:9 "Our knowledge is incomplete and our ability to speak what God has revealed is incomplete." So yes, because he's only a human writing letters to ancient peoples, it is very likely he was influenced by the Pagan culture which abused women in ways you wouldn't want to imagine.

What?

We often skim over the words "because of the angels" and that's not cultural. Women have covered their heads in church since 1st century until 1960s or so.

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

"The Apostle Paul is saying here that in the Corinthian culture, when a wife’s hair was longer than her husband’s, it showed her submission to his headship." Yeah I know. So he could easily physically abuse her, but never the opposite. These men have a strange, pathological fetish for control, just like the Pagan woman-abusing culture that influenced Paul and his writings. If "long hair" is a virtue of humility, why shouldn't men have it? What's up with the double standards? At least, be consistent. But no, it's not about virtue or humility (or else it would be a genderless rule). It's not even about God. It's about testosterone and a hunger for power. "The roles of the male and female are designed by God to portray a profound spiritual lesson, that is of submission to the will and the order of God." If God is male, then the male is God. In this video, this man is equating men with God and women are the perpetually clueless "angel" that's supposed to cover themselves in worship of a mortal man every time. If any of those men really knew anything about God, they wouldn't metaphorically equate themselves with Him in this most outrageous fashion.

Truth!

Christian headcovering predates Islam headcovering by about 700 years, so no, they're not just for Muslims. ☺️ That being said, the passage in 1 Corinthians doesn't say anything about covering your neck/chest, or even that every strand of hair needs to be covered, so we don't necessarily need to wear a scarf that covers as much as a hijab. My headcovering is often my husband's baseball cap because he takes it off to pray and I put it on lol.

Hijabs are just for Muslims

No one is denying that God is the Creator, it's the people who claim that God made Christ that is the issue. John 1 completely disproves that. Christ always has been and always will be alive.

But trinity doctrine is true. 3 distinct persons that coexist eternally 1 God. We see the Trinity (Godhead) in the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:16-17), The great commission (Matthew 28:19), The benediction (2 Corinthians 13:14), and arguably in Genesis 1:26, 3:22,and Ephesians 4:4-6. All three Persons of the Trinity participated in creation (1 Corinthians 8:6 and Genesis 1:1-2) and in salvation (John 3:6 & 16). All three are responsible for the resurrection of Jesus Christ The Bible indicates that ALL three Persons of the Trinity (Godhead) were involved in Jesus’ resurrection. Galatians 1:1 says that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. 1 Peter 3:18 says that the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (also in Romans 1:4 and note that Romans 1:8 clearly says that God will resurrect believers “through His Spirit”). And in John 2:19 Jesus predicts that He will raise Himself from the dead (also in John 10:18). So, when we answer the question of who resurrected Jesus, we can say God did. And by that we can mean it was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Not to mention The Father is called God (Romans 1:7). The Son is called God (Hebrews 1:8, John 1:1, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, and 3:4). The Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3-4). Peep 1 Timothy 4:10 points to the Savior being God.

With your mindset you can’t explain John 1

I love what u've written. I'd like to take it a step further. The word God is a title. So what is our God's name? And therefore if we should ask for all things in His name, should we not say His name instead of His title?

@@royaltm3420 God reveals himself to Moises his own name as I am ( Exodus 3:14) and the book of revelation just confirming that (Revelation 22:13 NLT -) I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”

How does anyone believe this nonsense, listen idk who or where you learned the God's Word from, if this is new to you then you've already been greatly deceived and don't have a prayer if your alive when Satan returns with the nephilim unless you repent, (naphi in Hebrew), the fallen angles for Jesus said in Matthew 26:6-38 in that area it will be as in the days of Noah. In Revelation 12 Satan and the fallen angels will return, God shortened the 7yr period to a 5 month period (spilt 7 in half to 2 3.5yr period/ you split the 5 month period up 2 2.5 half months), for the elects sake or no flesh would be saved because that's how good our enemy is that you've let man deceive you like this. I study from and study with those who purely teach God's Word from the Hebrew (OT) manuscripts/ and Greek (NT) manuscripts because if your not doing that then your never going to know. Genesis 6:2, Genesis 6:4, Job 1:6, Job 2:1, and Job 38:7 are 5 places in the OT where sons of God are mentioned and please check all this out on the Hebrew manuscripts, plenty of sources you can purchase for easy translation to English, such as a Strong's exhaustive concordance, a companion Bible, etc. Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in OUR image Genesis 1:27 God created man in his own image The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was Satan, not literal fruits or nonsense people teach little children in Sunday schools. The angels look like we do and they are coming back as it was before. It's a shame people have been so deceived that they almost make a religious war over women wearing something on their heads. Christianity is a reality, not a religion and friend you need to do your research. I care enough about you and I love God and it pains me to see people so lost when there is real truth out there, people just don't care enough to go check it our for themselves. You go research sons of God in the Hebrew and get back to me. Do you know about the Lord's Day whatsoever, do you know anything when Jesus comes back starting the millennium or anything in Revelation about what will really be going on? Do you really know about the mark of the beast? Hey be careful friend because you may accept it and not even know it if you don't even know your enemy. If that is how you look at alot of scripture (not saying you do), and listen to the traditions of men then Satan's already got you in the bag friend, yet it is not too late,no sir! Sharpen up and get in our Father's Word because He loves you and you have a destiny. Seriously if you have ANY questions at all then just ask me, really man just ask, it's not about you or I it's about almighty God YHVH for He is that He is and im just trying to honestly help you out, choice is yours. Joel 1:1 talks about the 4 stages of the locust, that locust army in Revelation. Have you been taught it? The locust army come during the 1st half of that 5 month period and actual locust have a 5 month life cycle which is from Passover to fall fellowship (thats no accident friend), Noah's flood was a 5 month period. *for the elects sake as I states in the 1st message to you in Mark 13, God did so. The great book of Daniel 9:27 when the abomination, the abdominal one, the desolator it should be- abaddon in Hebrew, apollyon in the Greek, both *names of Satan (God gave us so we couldn't go wrong and apply it to the old and new testament) in *Revelation (meaning the unveiling/ meaning that book literally means from God its all wide out in the open), that when you see that then you know it's been shortened to a 5 month period. I mean Jesus Himself in Mark 13 I believe, id, id have to go look but, go check me out if you want to be sure as well that He said He foretold us all things and Amen you can look that up, means that's that friend. I pray to God that what I have said glorifies Him in helping aid 1 of His children, that's all I want to do and He wants you to open others eyes.

@@ServingrKingofGlory What are you babbling on about you clown .

The devil is not always working through someone just because they believe differently and interpret scripture differently. Stop with that nonsense.

Women wrongs?

The problem with your theory is that it is irrelevant to the scriptures. The scriptures in 1st Cor. 11 are not referring to a hat or veil but the topic is about women having to cover their heads with long hair and men to not do that in other words keep their hair short. God is not caring about a woman wearing something or not on their heads. This idea is completely due to a few who have misinterpreted Paul's words.

It's not about Muslim women, it's about what the Bible tells us Christians to do. Covering was done in the Christian community until the feminism movements, and now hardly no one does it. It's because Christians let their worldly desires be above their faith, simple as that. It's definitely not about wanting to copy Muslims.

Critics of the Muslim veiling tradition argue that women do not wear the veil by choice, and they are often forced to cover their heads and bodies. In contrast, many daughters of Muslim immigrants in the West argue that the veil symbolizes devotion and piety and that veiling is their own choice.

@@robintang7304 and how is that relevant to what's been said?

@@taylorwillis2478 For some, the hijab is worn by Muslim girls and women to maintain modesty and privacy from unrelated males. According to the Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim World, modesty concerns both men's and women's "gaze, gait, garments, and genitalia". The Qur'an instructs Muslim women and men to dress modestly.

@@robintang7304 and how exactly does that relate to what's been said? Your comment was about Christian women wanting to be like Muslims, which is not true in the slightest.

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

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

Ok I would like to offer my tiny thesis on this which is only based on bible. 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 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.

...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. -NASB A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. “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

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

God doesn't require any head coverings. That's all we need to know. The Apostle Paul was referring to the importance of hair as a distinguishing mark for women and men.

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

I'm proud of you, and very inspirational. Thank you for sharing this with us.

You are right that it is not talking about the husband here and yes it is talking about prayer to God. It should also be noted that it is asking us to make a judgment call in that if it is proper or as the KJV phrases it "comely" (pleasing in appearance) that a woman pray to God with her head uncovered? This is a judgment based on observation. So what makes a woman unpleasing in appearance the lack of a hat? or the lack of hair? For if long hair is the covering then to be uncovered means to have short hair. Therefore if a woman is not covered in long hair (in other words has short hair) it is obvious that it would make a woman look unpleasing. The lack of a hat wouldn't.

Absolutely the next question is Is Paul referring to long hair or an artificial one based on the verses alone?

God doesn't require any head coverings. That is all we need to know. The Ap. Paul emphasized the significance of hair as a distinctive mark for women and men.

The 'covering' is the hair itself. As for men, the priests of the Old Covenant were required in scripture to wear turbans. This was part of their priestly garments God required them to wear. There is an essay on hair covering regarding women that is several minutes long to read. I'll paste if requested. It should help you understand that the hair itself is the covering.

Most people who have a hard time thinking about hair being the covering often misinterpret what those sho believe it to mean hair. The first thing I notice is that although hair IS the covering but one must say LONG hair is the covering otherwise the opposite (short hair ) would not cover much. One often argument is assuming those who think the covering is long hair think it would be illogical if Paul says that one should cut the woman’s hair if it was already short or already cut? Therefore, this explanation obviously does not make sense as it seems to be repetitive, but this is not being understood correctly. Being covered (aka uncovered) means having short hair but that does not mean that it cannot be cut shorter or shaved off. A person can have short hair, but neither does it imply that it is a buzz cut or shaved off bald. Therefore, even though one can have short hair it doesn’t mean that it cannot be cut or shaved bald. This is simple logic. So now it is important to understand what shorn and shaven mean. The word “shorn” is the same word used when you shear sheep. A stubble is left behind. And shaven implies using a razor which implies that all the hair would be taken clean off. Note that the word “shorn” is repeated alongside the word “shaven” in the KJV as if to confirm and clarify that Paul is referring has to do with something extreme and that it causes shame. Obviously cutting off an inch of hair is not going to cause shame therefore the meaning implies something more. And since both words imply seeing the scalp he must be referring to baldness. A quick look at any dictionary will show that these words are synonymous. Therefore, by mentioning these words side by side Paul would seem to be emphasizing the fact that women with short hair may as well be made bald. Yet some refuse to see the obvious logic and will claim that it doesn’t mean baldness but just that it simply means cut, brushing aside the fact that it has a capacity of causing shame, but they don’t do the due diligence of research. For example, the SAME word “shorn” is used when Paul makes a vow and cuts off his hair. I don’t think any normal person reading this would assume that Paul took an inch off his hair right? No, it was common back then that when someone was serious about a vow, they would do a serious act like cutting ALL their hair off. There is nowhere to run away from this, shorn just like shaven has to do with baldness. It would also be very difficult to claim that Paul was speaking metaphorically as hair seems to be the main theme here and the removal thereof repeatedly. Why would he repeat the words shaved or shorn unless he was being literal? I think most of us can agree that having short hair (like in a typical male haircut) is NOT the same as having their hair shorn or shaven aka bald. Therefore, a woman being “uncovered” simply means that she has short hair and that in doing so she might as well shave the REST of her hair off. It’s not that complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. Unfortunately, people tend to get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seem like some kind of headwear but do not consider all the verses that show that “covering” means long hair and that “uncovered” means short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can we conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet, or veil?

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter can you explain away this verse? “Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.” (Isaiah 47:2, KJV)

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter what about this verse? “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:” (Numbers 5:18, KJV)

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter at what length does hair transition from covered to uncovered?

@@SeanRhoadesChristopher Well it looks like you have been busy and a bit riled up with 3 comments instead of making one comment. First of all when it comes to your citations you have not established that there was a doctrine people were following regarding a veil or a hat. I think that would make MUCH more sense to cite than anything you can get your hands on that uses the word cover or covering or uncover and then claim victory because the words are there regardless of the reason they may have worn it. Uncovering the locks from Isaiah 47:2 which I assume you are referring to, does not support the idea that full on doctrine on head covering existed. Both men and women wore things on their heads for many reasons and is NOT specifically referring to women. So how can one take this very short phrase and imply a doctrine existed? This does not prove a DOCTRINE. As for Numbers 5:18 this verse also does not prove that a head covering doctrine existed. One can argue that since the woman went before the priest that she could have easily dressed up to see him. Like when Rebecca put on a veil when she was next to Jacob’s house, BEFORE they were married. Had it really been a doctrine she should have worn it throughout the trip. According to the Bible putting on a head covering is classified as a finery (aka bravery) that supposedly enhances one’s look, if you wish to believe Isaiah 3:18-23. The Bible here lists many accessories that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that putting on bonnets, veils, headbands, fine linen and hoods were accessories to make someone look more attractive or prestigious. This flows nicely to what I mentioned before about dressing up for the priest. So now I ask you to please explain away Isaiah 3:18-23. In that day the Lord will take away the BRAVERY of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, The BONNETS, and the ornaments of the legs, and the HEADBANDS, and the tablets, and the earrings, The rings, and nose jewels, The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, The glasses, and the fine linen, and the HOODS, and the VAILS. Bravery = Finery which means expensive or ostentatious clothes or decoration. So if God is saying that this list of head coverings are classified as decorations and NOT essential items needed to be worn for some religious purpose, then it is a mistake to assume so. God clearly spells out in detail they are to be taken as a finery. Lastly regarding how one determines a particular length of hair to be covered or uncovered. The answer is in verse 15 in the word covering. Covering comes from the Greek word peribolaion which means throw around or wrap around. In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around or a wrap around for her head - she is covered, and meets the condition first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. So as far as verse 15 is concerned long hair was given to the woman as a covering and if it is something that has the ability to wrap around or throw around then it would be obvious that a haircut like a Bob or pixie cut cannot do that as it would be too short. So what makes long hair long according to the bible? It has to have the ability to wrap around or throw around otherwise it would be short.

For if the woman be not covered (IN LONG HAIR), let her also be shorn (CUT BALD): but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn (CUT BALD) or shaven, (SHAVED BALD) let her be covered (IN LONG HAIR). Doesn't seem to be a problem at all. If a woman is not covered in long hair meaning her hair is short that she might as well cut it all off. but if is a shame to either be cut or shaved bald then let her be covered in long hair. Makes sense to me.

@@robertmiller812 It a woman hasn't got long hair, let her have short hair (shorn), but if it is a shame for a woman to have short hair (shorn) or shaven (all off), then let her have long hair. No, it doesn't really make sense, by my reading. It also misses the point. What he is saying is 'For if a women be not covered' that is if she doesn't wear a head covering, (which is a symbol of headship) let her go the whole way and just get shorn (like a man - taking his place). But if (or since) it is a shame for a woman to shorn (like a man - taking a man's place in headship) or shaven (like the cult prostitutes - denying headship roles at all) - let her by covered. His argument seems to be - if you are going to drop the symbol, why not remove the natural symbol as well. And if (as they would probably acknowledge), you appreciate that it is a shame to be shorn or shaven (symbolic denials of headship roles or headship itself) - then just acknowledge the symbol. Lord bless, Andrew

@@andrewwilliamson450 Well it doesn’t make sense to you because you have changed the meaning. You have intentionally changed what I wrote that being shorn means to be cut off BALD. Shorn is not “cut short” as proof read Acts 18:18. Paul cut off his hair and the scholars agree that he cut it ALL off. No one assumes that he cut off an inch. Therefore shorn = cut bald. It is the same word one uses to sheer sheep one cuts their wool down to the stubble and obviously no one assumes that they cut a tiny bit of wool off you cut it ALL off. As FURTHER proof both shorn and shaven are LINKED to shame because they are both referring to BALDNESS because one is cut down to the stubble and the other is shaved clean. Sudden baldness can provoke shame so to think that a little bit of hair was cut off would cause that doesn’t make sense. If you read from the newer more corrupt versions of the Bible you will get all sorts of false understandings like an artificial head covering or that this was meant for married people or that symbolism plays a part here. You ADD a lot of stories here and it may be to due to a bad translation because in the KJV there is not mention of a symbol of headship. You have created several NEW things that cannot be proven in the passage: taking a man's place in headship cult prostitutes - denying headship symbolism I suggest that you read from the King James because you are making arguments that cannot be corroborated biblically. The simple fact is that some men and women were covering their heads with long or short hair which was opposite to the tradition of hair length for the genders. It went against nature and the way God had set things up. That doing godly or holy acts made it look worse and Paul was trying to put order back in place. This is not about artificial head coverings as there is no noun or evidence that proves such a thing. Just do this one thing count the many times Paul refers to hair and then count the many times Paul refers to an actual synthetic head covering. You will find it 7 (hair 3x Shorn/shaven 4x) to 0.

1Co 11:6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair . But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair or her head shaved, let her cover her head. Legacy Standard Bible. 1Co 11:6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to or shave her head, let her cover her head. ESV. Clearly the word doesn't need to mean 'cut bald' but rather 'cut/shorn'. Or all the scholars involved in these two translations wouldn't have translated it as they did. The context decides as usual. The distinction with the 'shaven' suggests that it is something different than it. Hence my interpretation. Lord bless.

@@andrewwilliamson450 Well I don’t know if you realized but you made my case. The Legacy Standard Bible and the ESV are both modern versions with many bad translations in them. I literally told you that the modern version are bad and that is the first thing you cite. I guess when you believe you have no other recourse… Maybe you need proof? There are so many but let me give you one. 1st John 5:7 ESV = For there are three that testify: LSB = For there are three that bear witness: KJV = For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. So what do have to say now? You can’t use the excuse of scholars here as a whole line is taken out. And there are MANY more inconsistencies or mistakes like this. You have to consider that maybe what you are reading is NOT the complete or correct Word of God and therefore if they are wrong in the verse I mentioned then they might be wrong about their interpretations about head coverings. Read it again from the KJV which was translated from the Textus Receptus.

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.

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. * 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” 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)? Someone needs to explain this logically. This is 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 or would make her look unpleasing? 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 that there is an unpleasing appearance. I think I can say with some assurance that many of us have done double takes when looking at a short-haired woman from behind especially if we are not sure if 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 include 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 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.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter >v15... we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair Yes, but I believe Paul is using this as an evidence for an additional covering, since v6 would not make much sense if we understand long hair to be the only covering. > So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) The Greek in v6, 15 (cover, covering) are actually two completely separate words. Technically, this helps your argument, since in v15, it could be read something like "Her hair was given to her *as a veil*". > Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? I believe Paul is being rhetorical here, as in, "surely, you can't possibly think that women praying unveiled is correct, right?" > 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 or would make her look unpleasing? Personally, in 2024, for the average person, your position makes sense. Not knowing much about this aspect of church history until fairly recently, I would have agreed with you. However, if you ask your mother or grandmother and listen to stories about the churches they knew, you would actually find that women veiling during prayer (or in church in general) is *precisely* the norm, up until about 50-60 years ago. Women veiling in church was a common and expected occurrence in pretty much all of church history. Now, instead of asking "surely no one thinks it's wrong", you must ask "if everyone judged for themselves, and found it correct, why suddenly did we stop?" > 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 I appreciate your relatively calm tone until this point, but I won't be engaging with these kinds of allegations/arguments. God bless!

@@FA-God-s-Words-MatterFor more information, Mike Winger here on RU-vid has an excellent (albeit, long) coverage of the historicity and arguments for/against physical head coverings. While he does not come to the same conclusion as I do with regard to *whether* a woman should cover or not, he does make excellent (both biblical and extrabiblical) arguments for why the covering Paul is speaking of refers to a physical piece of cloth.

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter One additional point that should be highlighted: the Greek for "covered" in v6 KJV "if the woman be not covered", is "katakalypto", a verb (action) meaning to "cover ones self". So the covering is indeed an action you can perform, involving something you can put on or take off.