2011 12 04 A Long Hair, Coverings, Shaved 1 Dr Steven J Lawson 1216111830364

[@brendaduncan4347]

I am watching this just a few days after Pastor Lawson was fired. It breaks my heart. I appreciate his preaching and have learned so much. This is a message that we don't hear, because pastors are intimidated by the world and even the church. I am praying for Pastor Lawson, his family and their church.

[@johnguill6129]

I am glad to see someone preach on this text. It is needed.

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

Needed....why?

[@barryallen119]

Some have taken issue with the fact that the Greek word used for covering in verse 15 (περιβόλαιον - peribolaion) is a different word than the form of the word used for veiling/covering in verses 5-7 and 13 (κατακαλύπτω - katakalupto), the latter of which means "to cover wholly" or "to veil". Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, John W. Keddie, contended that if simply any hair were the covering Paul was talking about, then verse 6 would read "For if the women have no hair on her head, let her also be shorn", rendering the passage to be nonsensical. Verses 5 through 7, as well as verse 13, of 1 Corinthians 11 use a form of the Greek word for "veiled", κατακαλύπτω katakalupto; this is contrasted with the Greek word περιβόλαιον peribolaion, which is mentioned in verse 15 of the same chapter, in reference to "something cast around" as with the "hair of a woman … like a mantle cast around". These separate Greek words indicate that there are thus two headcoverings that Paul states are compulsory for Christian women to wear, a cloth veil and her natural hair.

[@earnestlycontendingforthef5332]

The issue at Corinth was not whether long or short hair was an acceptable covering, but whether or not the head was covered with a veil or hat. This is proven by the following: ----"Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head" (v. 4). The distinction here is obviously not between short and long-haired brethren, but rather between men with covered and uncovered heads. Contentious sisters were provided with an alter­ native: either cover the head or be shorn or shaven ( v. 6). But if long hair were the intended covering, then the Apostle's alternative is meaningless. "Cover" ( -ed, -ing) in the A.V. disguises the fact that different words for "to cover" are used in the Greek text. The distinction between two of these, "katakalupto" and "peribolaion" proves that a veil or head covering, and not long hair is intended. These words are as follows: "Katakalupto" ( 'kata' = 'fully'; 'kalupto' = 'to cover up'), "to cover fully" ( Yg). This word occurs through­ out verses 5- 13 and is translated "veil" in the R.S.V.; Nestle and Marshall's "Interlinear Greek-English New Testament'' and many other versions. These translations make it plain that the issue relates to a head covering, not the growth of hair, long or short. "Peribolaion" ('peri' = 'around'; 'ballo' = 'to throw, cast'), "something cast around" ( Y g). The long hair of a woman is her glory - like a mantle cast around ( v. 15) .(8) But this is not to be displayed in the assembly of believers before the presence of God. The intended covering in the ecclesial meeting is the "katakalupto" ---- the head covering or veil. When Paul refers to the long hair given to the woman as her glory, he is drawing a parallel with what "nature" or common-sense suggests. This can be seen from the following: MAN long hair is degrading. WOMAN long hair is her glory. Therefore. a parallel is evident [natural] with the spiritual a man ought not to cover his head a woman ought to cover her head.

[@Steppingheavnward]

Many noble men of God in the Bible had long hair so how is it degrading for him to have? That’s the most confusing to me in this passage.

[@earnestlycontendingforthef5332]

@@Steppingheavnward How many noble men?

[@Steppingheavnward]

Earnestly contending for the faith I mean, I can go count if I need to. But John the Baptist, the greatest prophet there ever was had long hair so there’s an example.

[@earnestlycontendingforthef5332]

@@Steppingheavnward Which chapter and verse, please.

[@jeanpaulgartier3404]

@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 Samuel and John the Baptist. Also Samson and that guy that got stuck in the tree

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

In 1 Corinthians 11:5-15, Paul clearly teaches that women are to cover their heads when praying or prophesying. He makes no comment about women wearing head coverings in other contexts. The Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 is different from the one he used in 1 Corinthians 11:15, clearly showing that the covering referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 is not her hair. Paul uses the adjective ἀκατακάλυπτος (akatakaluptos) for "uncovered" for the covering at 1 Corinthians 11:5-13, and the verb, κατακαλύπτω (katakaluptó), for *both the man and the woman being covered*, but the noun περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) for the woman's covering in 1 Corinthians 11:15. Had Paul wanted to say hair is the covering at 1 Corinthians 11:15 in the same sense as he was referring to in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 (notwithstanding that this would make nonsense of all that he'd said so far), all he needed to do was to use the corresponding noun, κάλυξ (kalux), instead of περιβόλαιον (peribolaion). Hence, given Paul's use of περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) for the covering at 1 Corinthians 11:15, one can only reasonably conclude he is referring to a different kind of covering there. This point is backed up in parallel usages in the Septuagint showing that ἀκατακάλυπτος (akatakaluptos) does not refer to hair. The 'hair as a covering' claim is a modern invention. Those promoting it are, in effect, saying the earliest Christians, who lived in a world where koine Greek was the lingua franca, didn't understand what Paul wrote. None of the early church fathers - repeat, none - all of whom were closer in language and thought to the Apostles than we'll ever be thought it referred to anything other than a covering over the hair. Those promoting the 'hair as a covering' claim also need to explain why translations such as the: ASV, ERV NAB, NRSV & RSV render the covering as a veil: NLT renders it as a 'wear a head covering'; and CEV renders it as 'wear something on her head'. Do the 'hair as a covering' proponents really expect us to believe they know more about what the Greek text means than the scholars involved in making those translations??? Paul's admonition was also clearly counter-cultural (despite unfounded claims to the contrary) and, in any event, was theologically based, not culturally conditioned. Were those promoting the 'hair as a covering' interpretation to take it to a Greek Orthodox church, the Greek speakers there would probably either laugh in their face or walk away in disbelief and disgust. Either way, they'd get short shrift. Applying the logic of the 'hair as a covering' claim to the whole of *1 Corinthians 11:4-15 (NKJV)* gives: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered _with hair,_ dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head -un- _not_ covered _with hair_ dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered _with hair on her head,_ let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her _head_ be covered _with hair._ For a man indeed ought not to cover his head _with hair,_ since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have _hair as_ a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head -un- _not_ covered _with hair?_ Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a _head_ covering. *---* If a woman's hair is the covering throughout 1 Corinthians 11:5-15 it is also dishonorable for a man to have a covering on his head when praying or prophesying, per 1 Corinthians 11:4 and a man should have no hair on his head when praying or prophesying. Similarly, if a woman's hair is the covering and a man ought not to cover his head, per 1 Corinthians 11:7, logic demands that the man has his head shaved. Additionally, the 'hair as a covering' proponents' line of argument is tautological - as the re-worked 1 Corinthians 11:6 shows. Finally, when Paul refers to a woman's 'long hair' in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, he is merely contrasting its glory with the shamefulness of being shorn that he referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:16. Note, too, that (contrary to what some 'hair as a covering' proponents claim) Paul does not say in 1 Corinthians 11:15 that _long_ hair is given to her for the περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) covering, only that long hair is her glory. The insistence that hair is the covering misrepresents Paul's teaching, makes a taitological mockery of what he wrote, and promotes disobedience. Although this isn't a salvation issue, what is at stake is the heavenly rewards women might get for obedience. Women who refuse to cover their heads when praying or prophesying will suffer loss of standing in the next life, as will those who encourage such disobedience. Paul apparently thought the issue serious enough for anyone disputing it to be denied fellowship.

[@keirshepherd3214]

Amen amen amen, the church had had head coverings since the apostles right up until around last century then feminism kicks in and they try to get rid of God's ordinances

[@barryallen119]

7 Reasons for head covering So the very first reason for head coverings is because of the created order. This is the foundation that Paul said “I want you to understand” (1 Cor 11:3,8). This is not a cultural argument, but a transcendent argument as the Fathers headship is eternal and unchanging. Because the ordinance of head covering is for certain times (v4-6), demonstrating a removable covering. (v6) It was to be worn during certain times (prayer and prophecy, or worship). This is not possible with hair. A man (men were instructed not to cover their heads) cannot remove his hair then put it back on when praying is done! “If a woman will not” demonstrates the covering was removable. Because a woman’s hair (length according to the individual) is for her glory. (v15) Part of the purpose of the head covering is to veil this glory, not showcase it. Individual glory is the LAST thing any should want in the Presence of God! Because this creates quite a quandary for women who cannot grow “long hair.” Think of Alopecia. Can they still pray and prophesy in certain settings? Regardless of hair length though, a covering can still be worn. Because of the way verse 6 would read if we substituted “hair” or “long hair:” “If a woman will not [have long hair], let her cut her hair short…” Huh? She would already have done that! The whole point of that verse is to show the shame of her not covering. Because it would be very odd if her symbol of authority in the presence of angels (v10) was one that gave her glory (v15), since the biblical testimony of angelic worship is not glory for angels, but angels showing humility and covering themselves. (Isa 6:1-3) Because the Church agreed with the simplicity and power of this teaching for 1950 years, from the time of Apostles (v16) through the mid-Twentieth Century (1950-60s). We only began to disobey these precepts on a large scale when feminism hit the West like a tidal wave.

[@jorgechavez7411]

The word of God doesn't change.

[@biblicalbroadcasting2639]

Paul is quite clear in his teaching here, appeals to culture only confuse the issue

[@itsethan3623]

No paul is not only doing this because of the culture, that's just an improvisation to explain the text. But he does not say that, rather he says: 'the church of the saints has no other practice '

[@The_Truth_Talk]

Exactly

[@matthewbrown9029]

@@itsethan3623 you're exactly right. In other words, no other church in the whole world disagrees nor do they argue about it. It's that well-known and understood.

[@laurenalmeyda6916]

Thank you! Above all we should submit ourselves to our own husband and to Christ.

[@philipbuckley759]

it seems pretty straight forward, to me....

[@Berean_with_a_BTh]

Lawson clearly had no understanding of the Greek text when he preached this. Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:3, Lawson contends that two completely different Greek words are used to refer to a man. False. It's just two different forms of the _same_ Greek noun (ἀνήρ -anér) referring to an adult male human being, with ἀνδρὸς (andros) being the genitive form and ἀνήρ (anér) being the nominative form. Neither form has any inherent connection with the man being a husband - only context can resolve that issue. Had Paul wanted to draw such a distinction, he would have used ἄνθρωπος (anthrópos) for the first reference (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:28). Likewise, the Greek noun γυνή (guné) in 1 Corinthians 11:5 is just the nominative form of the noun referring to a woman, whether a wife or not, just as γυναικός (gynaikos) is genitive form of that noun (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:11). As for Lawson attempts to explain Paul's concern as being cultural, he is simply disregarding the strictly theological basis of Paul's instruction for all women in all congregations to cover their heads. For solid biblical teachings on this subject, see the Followers of the Way 3-part series at: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3KXk6uGZdOMlZI kzbin.info/www/bejne/fnKXY5KrpKqhecU kzbin.info/www/bejne/rmPCmX2Xgducqc0 and the Sound Faith teaching at: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZfPhoqCe72snKs

[@barryallen119]

Our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words in to the Apostle’s mouth, but we are ignoring the words that are there.” As Dr. Sproul frequently noted, Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 11:2-12 grounds head coverings for wives in worship in the order of creation. Man was created first, which puts him in a position of authority over his wife; therefore, his wife should cover her head in corporate worship as a sign of her submission. Whatever role other cultural factors may play, grounding head coverings in the creation order suggests that the practice should be followed in every generation. It is something that reflects the world as it was created and how it should be.

[@Angela3.]

I don’t really understand, if it was a custom to have head coverings and if prostitutes were identified because their heads were not covered then why would faithful christian women walk around without a covering, more so in church. And if this covering is only for Corinthian women then why is Paul saying because of angels? So angels were only present during Corinthian women’s prayers? There are many letters to many different churches throughout, so do we not take anything from the books of Romans to Jude because it was written to them? God is the same yesterday today and forever. Doesn’t matter who it was written to or when it was written, we should just obey His Word.

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

Note that those who push veils will always repeat over and over that if hair was the covering why would a woman need to cover their heads if it is already covered with hair are making a false assumption that the verses in question refer to women who already have their heads covered. That is not so. When reading verse 5 they are addressing those women whose heads are NOT covered meaning that they do not have long hair, which is revealed in a moment. But first let’s read some actual verses. “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. So the question you should ask yourself is if they are referring to a veil or that an "uncovered" head refers to someone who's head is not covered in long hair ergo "short hair"? The “already covered head” misinterpretation is what many of those who push for veils try to convince others of believing despite the fact that the rest of the verse as well as the other verses don't make sense if you try to apply the word "veil." For example in the second half of the verse it says women who are “uncovered” are equated with being shaven. So if we apply a veil here to a "typical" woman who has long hair it goes beyond logic. For example if a woman with long flowing hair is 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 picture a 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 groups who adhere to the belief that it refers to an actual veil and want others to see what they see. It should be evident that the passages in question refer to long hair and short hair. It is CLEARLY MARKED OUT AND DEFINED 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 his 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 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 VERY NEXT VERSE CONITNUES TO FLOW OF SEEING THINGS SO OBVIOUS AND NATURAL: "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, ever. And I'll bet no one will answer this "judgment" call the Bible asks you to do logically, but will simply ignore it. Why? Because they can't find a way to answer it logically without realizing that they are wrong. Therefore the whole veil doctrine is wrong and cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

[@8784-l3b]

The 'covering' is the hair. There are many scriptures even outside of Corinthians should you want them. 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

[@auomanu76]

Awesome message 🙌 Grace to you and peace

[@paulwright2717]

Hello, would you have the follow-up sermon to this that he refers to? Thank you!

[@ta3851]

Paul Wright kzbin.info/www/bejne/nqHalKCOiax5fNk

[@charlayib]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/nqHalKCOiax5fNk

[@paulwright2717]

Found it, part 2 of this sermon - www.sermonaudio.com/playpopupvideo.asp?SID=1221220164110

[@matthewbrown9029]

Four years later, thanks so much!!

[@paulwright2717]

@@matthewbrown9029 You are welcome brother!! ha!

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

Note that those who push veils will always repeat over and over that if hair was the covering why would a woman need to cover their heads if it is already covered with hair are making a false assumption that the verses in question refer to women who already have their heads covered. That is not so. When reading verse 5 they are addressing those women whose heads are NOT covered meaning that they do not have long hair, which is revealed in a moment. But first let’s read some actual verses. “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. So the question you should ask yourself is if they are referring to a veil or that an "uncovered" head refers to someone who's head is not covered in long hair ergo "short hair"? The “already covered head” misinterpretation is what many of those who push for veils try to convince others of believing despite the fact that the rest of the verse as well as the other verses don't make sense if you try to apply the word "veil." For example in the second half of the verse it says women who are “uncovered” are equated with being shaven. So if we apply a veil here to a "typical" woman who has long hair it goes beyond logic. For example if a woman with long flowing hair is 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 picture a 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 groups who adhere to the belief that it refers to an actual veil and want others to see what they see. It should be evident that the passages in question refer to long hair and short hair. It is CLEARLY MARKED OUT AND DEFINED 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 his 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 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 VERY NEXT VERSE CONITNUES TO FLOW OF SEEING THINGS SO OBVIOUS AND NATURAL: "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, ever. And I'll bet no one will answer this "judgment" call the Bible asks you to do logically, but will simply ignore it. Why? Because they can't find a way to answer it logically without realizing that they are wrong. Therefore the whole veil doctrine is wrong and cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

@@lukepinn621 Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around”. In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the condition first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai. The entire context of this discussion about authority and headship, and the hierarchy established by God, includes a discussion of long hair on women and short hair on men. There is never a mention of a piece of cloth. Consider: the veil is a man-made device to cover a God-given, natural state. It is an imitation of what God has already provided. The cloth veil was a common article worn by both men and women of the desert lands. It served a practical purpose in that it protected the head, hair, and face from the relentless hot sun and the blowing sands of the desert. It was not commanded by God but was a practical invention. As the centuries wore on, it became a custom among certain cultures and religions. God does not bind man-made customs upon His people as immutable law.

[@lukepinn621]

​@@FA-God-s-Words-Matterin verse 6 it says for if she is not covered let her be shorn according to the long hair is the only interpretation then it means that if she hasn't got her long hair on meaning she has short hair let her be shorn what means she might as well have her hair shaved like a man this makes no sense she her hair is already short then it doesn't makes sense for Paul to say that her hair might as well be short because it already is. Another thing is that you read about hair once in verses 2-16 and the word head nine times this is focusing on the head not the hair.

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

@@lukepinn621 Is it true that veil promoters believe that if a woman is not covered in a veil, she should have her head shaved? Some have interpreted verse 6 is about literally shaving a woman’s head as a form of punishment. “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 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone as in verse 5 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. Veil promoters take this verse and have construed it to believe that back then Christian women were disciplined by having their heads shaved or cut if they did not wear a veil when it says no such thing. Ok, let’s review this and put this in perspective. So, in verse 5 veil promoters believe that an unveiled woman is likened to a person whose head is shaved (which is an illogical comparison), and in verse 6 some believe that if the woman is not veiled 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 some of them 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. A misunderstanding of the explanation of verse 6. Some have repeatedly told me that my explanation of verse 6 doesn’t make sense because as one person put it: “If a woman doesn’t have long hair let her cut her hair? That just doesn’t make sense.” In other words, they are under the impression that one is explaining verse 6 to mean that if a woman’s hair is supposedly already cut short why would it state to cut it again? Therefore, this explanation does not make sense as it seems to be repetitious, but this is not being understood correctly. As said before not being covered (aka uncovered) means having short hair but that does not mean that it cannot be cut shorter or shaved off. I think it is safe to say if someone were to declare that they were shaving or cutting off their hair, one is not thinking of a styled haircut but that they are removing all their hair. The words “shorn” or “cut off” (as mentioned in other versions) do not just mean to cut someone’s hair it means to shave OFF the hair. Note that the word “shorn” is repeated alongside the word “shaven” in the KJV as if to confirm and clarify that they are referring to extremely short hair that implies seeing the scalp. 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. 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?

[@blessedrthosesermount99]

​@FA-God-s-Words-Matter because scripture says, if she won't cover her head, let her have her hair cut off, or, shorn. If uncovered is short hair, why would it say for her to cut her hair off- it already is cut off. It doesn't make sense. To be covered is to have some fabric on her head/hair.

[@FA-God-s-Words-Matter]

@@blessedrthosesermount99 It is a common mistake to think that this what non-veilers think. That they are under the impression that one is confused when explaining verse 6 because why would Paul say that one should cut the woman’s hair if it was supposedly already cut? Therefore, this explanation does not make sense as it seems to be repetitive, but this is not being understood correctly. As said before not being covered (aka uncovered) means having short hair but that does not mean that it cannot be cut shorter or shaved off. Therefore, even though one can have short hair it doesn’t mean that it cannot be cut even shorter or shaved bald. It is also 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 which in turn causes shame. Obviously cutting off an inch of hair is not going to cause shame therefore the meaning implies something more drastic. 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 do not see the obvious logic and will claim that it doesn’t mean baldness but just that it simply means cut short, brushing aside the fact that it supposed to have the capacity of causing shame. For further proof God has allowed us to read that 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? Neither do the scholars. Run it through google and you will find the majority admit that Paul cut ALL his hair off. 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. So as you can see based on SEVERAL portions of Bible shorn is not referring to a small cut but a major removal of all the hair down to the stubble. Knowing now the meaning of these words then it starts to make sense.

[@The_Truth_Talk]

The only thing he was wrong about is his assumption that there is such a thing as a “trinity”.

[@matthewbrown9029]

That's a very common argument. Have you heard of Dr. James White and his debate on it? You would do well to listen to them so you can have a better argument when addressing the issue

[@The_Truth_Talk]

@@matthewbrown9029 I did not address anything. I just made a statement. I think I understand the arguments of the trinity you can go ahead and tell me what I’m missing. Ive heard of James white and he was exposed by Roger Perkins. You would do well listing to him. My first question to you would be to what do get your Authority of God and his truth?

[@matthewbrown9029]

@@The_Truth_Talk that's an insulting questing. Of course I get that from His very own Word.

[@matthewbrown9029]

@@The_Truth_Talk and I am very familiar with that debate. To say that James White was exposed but Perkins is outlandish. Perkins had some decent points but he did not have the correct hermeneutics to tackle this subject. Perkins believes the old testament is sufficient by itself to explain God's personhood. He denies the revelation of God in the intertestamental period. James White uses the New Testament to answer the questions about the trinity in the Old testament - something Perkins could not and would not do. That was very problematic for Perkins. He is a great teacher though. I do commend him for his willingness to travel so far for that debate even knowing he was speaking to an audience who didn't necessarily agree with him. He could tone it down on tune aggression though, especially when defending an unbiblical doctrine and not allowing the words of Christ and the apostolic authority in the New Testament to explain the old testament.

[@The_Truth_Talk]

@@matthewbrown9029 how about you tell me where in the New Testament does it support the trinity, would you? ... and it seems you hold the same view of the trinity as Dr. White does. 3 persons in One God.

[@alassmann]

Yeah good religion blah blah blah so what how is your personal intimate relationship with your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ ? John 17:3, you better tremble at the statement depart from me I never knew for you

[@darcycreech7]

It's not clear to me whether you agree with women covering their heads during prayer or prophesying or not. Jesus said if you love me you will obey my commands/word of God. So which is your conclusion? To cover or not to cover?

[@jeanpaulgartier3404]

Hahaha, Assmann xD

[@Hiswordandme]

Speaking ungracefully like this says something about you... Examine yourself.

[@matthewbrown9029]

@@darcycreech7 you're correct. Also, who taught Paul? It was Jesus. So, whatever Paul is teaching, he must have learned it first from Christ. I think you said it well- our obedience to God is the fruit of salvation and repentence. A bad tree cannot bear good fruit. If you believe God, then you must believe in proper worship. And if you believe in proper worship, you must observe the traditions *Christ* taught