What's with the Head Covering? 

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.

Because it’s a sign of submission and women don’t need to be submissive anymore cos it’s not the 1800s. If a man told me to submit I’d laugh at him and give him a big f no and then threaten a restraining order

Well said ❤

💞💕

@@cherylwebb8340 thank you May God Bless you 🙏🏻

@@lauraswihart4816 ❤️❤️❤️

Amen ❤

Agreed

I think there's an energetic element to hair also. When I feel a certain way, I definitely cover my hair particularly when going in public.

The decree is for women to cover in prayer and prophecy. He didn't say to cover all the time. Some women chose to cover all the time, but that didn't mean all their hair is covered. Sometimes it just means they wear the cloth on their head even when they aren't in prayer or prophesying. Hope that makes sense.

Amen 💖

Glad you mentioned this! If we are going to obey the whole Word then we must include the “Old” Testament as well-there are plenty of clues in the “New” Testament (apostolic writings) to tell us why 🙌🏻🙌🏾

Amen.

Thank you for responding. I’ve been thinking a lot recently about the topic of whether or not something is a salvation issue. The more I think about it, the more I am uncomfortable with declaring anything to be a salvation or non-salvation issue. One of my favorites teachers, Dean Taylor, frequently asks the question “can you follow Jesus without following Jesus?” In my experience, people are far too comfortable with identifying non-salvation issues and truly believing they’re going to make it to heaven by doing whatever the comfortable minimum requirements are they’ve concocted with their own reasoning. That way of thinking is extremely dangerous. What would you tell your spouse if every time you asked them for a favor they asked you if your marriage was in jeopardy if they did not do it? That would be a toxic relationship. I’m not saying people that do not wear head coverings are not saved, but I don’t feel comfortable being the judge and I caution others against judging as well.

Well said. If you love me you will keep my commandments. John 14:15

Well said. Glory to God! Keep standing on the truth of God's word.

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 bless you. I began wearing mine in 1996 when I was 40. I am now 68. I am the only one at my conservative Baptist church who wears one. I don't mind. Nothing to be ashamed of. 🙏✝️🕊💜

@@cherylwebb8340 Thank you for the encouragement. ❤️

Keep standing on the truth! Jesus is truly worthy! When did it become strange to do what Jesus wants us to do in his own church? Crazy, isn't it? Praying for more eyes to be opened and hearts to be softened.

Absolutely true.... I think covering can be a good thing too though.

I recommend listening to Finny Kuruvillas teaching on the head covering for a thorough response to your comment ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QA4bxP0nY_0.htmlsi=WP9HUMwg9t9jzGZo

I recommend listening to the Lay of Liberty Channel and the head covering video.

Cult leaders coerce, force, emotionally and otherwise manipulate their subjects into submission. This brother brought the info to his wife and let her and God work it out. Not even close to cultish.

28 years for me ❤

I totally agree with that🙏

@@lindaweaver142 Thank you 🌸 Verse 4 is about a hat then verse 5 tells us the *context.* A shaven head is an uncovered head. By nature, a woman has long hair that covers her bare head and is a glory to her from God. Her hair IS the covering. Our head should be covered- and it is - by our long hair. When we look at history- In Holland during WW2, women that were with the Nazis were forced to have their heads shaved to shame them when the war ended. They essentially removed their covering (their long hair). It was a sign of dishonor to have her head shaved. Women in rebellion against Gods order in the 1970s (feminism) either buzzed their hair short or shaved it off. They were illustrating their blatant dishonor of Gods order by having no long hair. But it still goes back to where the heart is and God knows that. Because women with cancer that lose their hair aren’t choosing to dishonor God. He knows that ♥️

1. Hair makes no sense in verse 5. Therefore, it’s not talking about hair. 2. From day 1, all churches wore fabric head coverings for 1900 years. The Catholics, the Greek Orthodox, the Protestants and the Anabaptists all wore head coverings together for 400 years. How is it not prideful to think we know better today? 3. Verses 13-15 contain a separate argument from nature. It doesn’t invalidate the previous argument. 4. Paul commended the Corinthians for keeping the apostolic traditions (11.2). The same word for tradition (παράδοσις) is used in 2 Thessalonians 2.15 “Stand firm and hold to the παράδοσις that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” It’s also used in 2 Thess 3.6 to describe how α brother is excommunicated for breaking the παράδοσις. It’s easy for us in 2024 America to say this is an insignificant issue but I can’t see it from Scripture or church history.

@@heidrichforgottenfaith “hair makes no sense,” yet verse 15 says hair and so does the original Greek. That’s all I needed to read in your comment. I’m sorry to say, but you seem to be “contentious” as verse 16 describes you regarding this subject. You’re not disagreeing with me. You’re disagreeing with Gods Word and you need to take that up with the LORD. God Bless.

@@HarpazoReady2022 as a Greek instructor at Sattler college, I can tell you the words are not the same. Also, why do you think everybody got this wrong for 1900 years? Wouldn’t it make more sense to believe the feminist movement influenced the church than to believe that everybody in the church was wrong until 80 years ago?

That simply doesn't make sense. Hair is not the covering spoken about and you'd be the only person in the church to think that for over 1900 years.

@@heidrichforgottenfaith 🙏🙏🙏

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.

Hair is not the covering spoken about and you'd be the only person in the church to think that for over 1900 years

No...if that were the case there would be no distinction between "having something on your head" because hair is always on your head, even if you are praying or not.

Why can’t she be under her husband and obey 1 Cor 11 by wearing a head covering?

@@heidrichforgottenfaith In almost if not all of pauls letters he addresses what he wants to clarify in the chapter at the beginning of the chapter, same is true with 1corinthians 11. The context is in verse 3, the rest is an explanation. Let’s keep our Bible studies in context

@@charlenereitz7166 try reading it again using “hair” as the covering. “every woman who prays or prophesies with short hair dishonors her head, since it is the same as if she had short hair.” It doesn’t make sense. From day 1, and for about 1900 years, every church disagreed with hair being the covering.

Good point. If we read from the KJV neither will we read about the idea of veiling either in 1 Cor 11. Check and see.

Hair makes no sense in verse 5. Therefore, it’s not talking about hair. There are different Greek words being used to show that (ἀκατακαλύπτῳ in 5 vs. περιβολαίου in 15). “every woman who prays or prophesies with short hair dishonors her head, since it is the same as if she had short hair.” 2. From day 1, all churches wore fabric head coverings for 1900 years. The Catholics, the Greek Orthodox, the Protestants and the Anabaptists all wore head coverings together for 400 years. 3. Verses 13-15 contain a separate argument from nature. It doesn’t invalidate the previous argument. 4. Paul commended the Corinthians for keeping the apostolic traditions (11.2). The same word for tradition (παράδοσις) is used in 2 Thessalonians 2.15 “Stand firm and hold to the παράδοσις that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” It’s also used in 2 Thess 3.6 to describe how α brother is excommunicated for breaking the παράδοσις. It’s easy for us in 2024 America to say this is an insignificant issue but I can’t see it from Scripture or church history.

I would also like to add to that if you google “NWO burning of head covering 1968” you’ll actually see where the feminist movement called for all Christian women to burn their coverings as a sign of not being “oppressed” by the church. The head covering is not only power because of the angels but also a sign of submission to the godly order. God, Jesus, Man, Woman ❤️ I also want to add , my personal convictions concerning “because of the angels” is the fact that we are constantly surrounded by a cloud of witnesses the Bible says, the angels long to see the hidden things of God. Angels, good and bad, are constantly observing us. A head covering shows them our submissiveness spirit to Gods order. I believe when we wear covering not only to Gods angels rejoice in awe, but the fallen angels also flee. ❤

@@heidrichforgottenfaithshort hair are not a covering but long hair are

@@W.Texashomesteading try reading verse five using “hair” instead of a fabric head covering. “every woman who prays or prophesies with short hair dishonors her head, since it is the same as if she had short hair.”

@@heidrichforgottenfaith verse 5 here he addressed that it would be a shame for a woman to pray or prophecy without being submissive to her husband because remember the context in verse 3 I’ve always wear a headband or headcover but I do very clearly understand that this is not material he’s talking about here. To many people make their head covering their God and that scares me. Let’s keep our Bible studies in context

I wouldn't say you can't pray if you forget your covering or if you're in the shower without one; but if it's a command from God then we should take it seriously and not forget it. I don't leave my house forgetting to wear my pants and women shouldn't forget their head coverings.

Exodus 28.4 & Ezekiel 44.18 told priests to wear head coverings

I’d also like to comment - thanks for sharing this recent video of your faith walk. Years ago I saw a few women on youtube/instagram stop covering their head and it’s just confusing after that and then what is the point of having hair if you’re covering your head and hair?

​@annabelle1471 a gift for your husband only?

If I was God, I wouldn't ask women to cover their heads. But I believe God wrote 1 Corinthians and inspired godly women to cover their heads for over 1900 years. Sometimes we have to do things that don't make sense. His thoughts are above our thoughts and his ways are above our ways.

We're encouraging our 7 year old daughter to wear one if she wants to honor God when she prays. She forgets frequently and we're not reminding her about it. When she's around 12 years old we're going to remind her to put it on before we pray as a family and when she's at church. My hope and prayer is that she begins doing it on her own soon.