Best Explanation of Head Coverings in 1 Corinthians (Part 2) Dr. Oster

The lecture "Head Coverings and Headship in 1 Corinthians 11" was presented at the Harding Lectures, 2022. I appreciate their permission and Dr. Oster's permission in using this audio.
Ever wonder why Paul said what he did about head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11? Dr. Oster gives the historical and archaeological background as well as present implications for churches.
This is a follow-up to a video we posted last year of Dr. Oster on head coverings that left many of you with a lot of questions.
First video by Dr. Oster - • Best Explanation of He...
Harding Lecture Audio - scholarworks.h...
scholarworks.h...
Dr. Oster's commentary on 1 Corinthians (used copies are cheaper) - amzn.to/3Fo8MTB
Join the Revolution:
Weekly Email Update of all content, tools, videos, blogs
eepurl.com/g9I2k9
Facebook page
/ mattdabbsdiscipleship
Channel membership / @revolutionofordinaries
Donate - www.paypal.com...
Blessings,
Matt
FTC Legal Disclaimer - Some links in the description of the video may be affiliate links, meaning Wineskins will make commission on sales you make through product/book links. This is at no extra cost to you while allowing you to support the channel!

[@birds_and_sparrows]

Thanks! From my reading of the scripture again, it seems that it is an instruction for church assemblies and for women to cover in church and men not to. Because Paul said men are called to not cover. If this instruction was for everyday life, then that would mean that Paul told men to not cover or wear caps or coverings all the time. Which doesn't make sense. Since in different circumstances men would need to wear headcoverings. e.g. construction hats, hoodies, scuba diving. So my interpretation from praying about this is that it is for the church assembly.

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

Just curious you said that “it seems that it is an instruction for church assemblies and for women to cover in church…” Where exactly are you referring from? because the words church assemblies and church are not in this passage. You also mentioned “…that would mean that Paul told men to not cover or wear caps or coverings…” You seem to be implying that Paul was referring to a separate object yet the words cap or covering is not mentioned in the passage (with exception to the word covering in verse 15). May I ask with all the words that mention hair that are about 7 instances (hair 3x, shorn and shaven 4x) why is it that hair (which covers the head) should be side stepped as the meaning to the covering? TY

[@birds_and_sparrows]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter in 1 corinthians chapter 11, Paul is discussing the order and etiquette of a gathering of believers which is the church (the body of Christ). In verse 34, Paul talks about what to do when gathering and how to eat the Lord’s supper. Therefore, this section of scripture, which includes head coverings and the Lords supper, detail how Christians should behave during the assembly. That is my understanding from the passage. Thanks for asking for clarification!

[@robertmiller812]

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.

[@ric_gatewood]

This is not a difficult passage to understand. Its pretty straight forward. If your a man and desire to please your Lord you will uncover your head when praying and and a women you will cover your head. It is a tradition delivered to us by the Spirit because it is not something we comeup with on our own. It establishes a cultural practice of the church.

[@revolutionofordinaries]

It is important to first understand the culture into which Paul was speaking so we can understand what it first meant when it was first written. Once we understand Paul's point, then we are in a better position to make application today.

[@robertmiller812]

I agree it is not a difficult passage to understand. But unfortunately some have taken something so simple and logical to mean something that it never mentions, like the word hat or veil. When Paul is saying that men ought not to cover their heads when praying or prophesying he wasn't being exclusive they were just two examples. Also he was referring to the fact that men ought not to cover their heads with long hair. When it comes to women some groups have taken that women ought to wear a hat or veil when praying or prophesying when such a noun is not found in the original text. These ideas are based on assumptions but not textual facts. The fact is that Paul was not being exclusive but just giving examples. That is why we read only the word "praying" in verse 13. Paul mentions that men ought to be “uncovered” because he is the image and glory of God? So it isn't only when he prays and prophesies that his head should be uncovered, his head should always be uncovered. Now if a woman’s head ought to covered in long hair then it is logical to understand that the man's head should NOT be covered in long hair, since men’s hair is supposed to be short (not to be misunderstood as baldness). Therefore to be covered means to be covered in long hair and to be uncovered means to have short hair. We can go on and mention that the women ought to be covered because of the angels and because she is in the second order of creation. So my point is the idea that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying doesn't make sense with the surrounding verses. But if they were referring to long hair for women and short hair for men then the other verses start to make much more sense.

[@skg008]

I have a question that has been on my mind constantly…why did God command the Pharisees and Old Testament Priests to cover their head? It was part of the uniform God commanded them to wear. Obviously God’s Word never contradicts itself so I think there is some wrong understanding somewhere…I know Paul wouldn’t ever want to go against God’s given commands. So what can we say about this? Just really want to know myself 😕

[@robertmiller812]

@@skg008 The facts are that God commanded the OT Priests to put on a hat. The word is clearly understood in the OT. But when it comes to the 1st Corinthians 11. It doesn't say that men ought not to wear hats. The word is not there. But it does say that a man's head ought not to be covered. One assumes a hat or veil because of either personal misinterpretation or because they follow some group that follows that misinterpretation. The fact is that it mentions hair many times and in many ways (long hair 2x shorn 2x shaven 2x). Despite the facts some still want to see hats and veils. Paul was simply preaching that men ought not to be covered in long hair and women ought to be covered in long hair. It is very simple ergo there is no conflict between this and the OT priestly garb.

[@tehZevo_]

@@revolutionofordinaries It is also important to first understand that Paul uses the timeless, trans-cultural arguments of headship and created order to support his position for women wearing a covering, and men to not wear one. We do not read scripture (especially not an NT letter from Paul addressed to "all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" -1 Cor 1:2) to find "how it applies to us today", that is where we begin to walk down the road of biblical liberalism. We first take literally, the clear aspects of scripture as they are presented: "do/don't wear a covering". From there, we are free to argue (using scripture) the unclear bits. Head coverings were a universal church custom until around 1970, when feminism began attacking God-ordained gender roles. As part of this attack, the National Organization for Women called for a "national unveiling" of women, where they threw off their coverings as coverings were supposedly a "symbol of oppression". Even *IF* Paul is simply arguing about spirit and behavior in worship, then this alone would be a reason to return to covering for women in church -- as coverings were thrown off and forgotten as a result of a rebellious action. As culture at large continues to be more forgiving in its definitions of "modesty", and while Christians continue to resist this cultural shift, so also should Christians resist the degeneration of God-ordained gender roles, and reclaim the *clearly stated* outward symbol of these roles as described in 1 Corinthians 11. God bless you.

[@robertbliss7221]

Matt, I didn't hear Dr. Oster talk about why women are praying and prophesying with their heads uncovered. I got why Roman males wear the head covering and why they continued doing it in their assemblies in Corinth. Did Roman women wear head coverings while praying and prophesying? Or were these uncovered women in the Corinthian assemblies from a different cultural perspective (Greek or Jewish or some other culture) and were the Christians in Corinth who were following their Roman cultural practices objecting to these Christian women who were not Roman for not following the Roman practice of covering the head while praying or prophesying? I also found his argument from nature to be lacking. Is there a different in actual length of hair between men and women if they both let their hair grow without cutting? It seems to me that most cultures (perhaps second nature would be a better argument rather than nature) make a distinction between men and women in the length of their hair. It would seem to me that most Roman men cut their hair (as I saw in the statues on the video) and keep it shorter than women. How would that play into the nature argument? I also didn't hear in his two videos whether or not he thinks women today should be wearing a head covering while praying and prophesying? Does he think that praying and prophesying (both men and women) is done in front of the assembly and even leading the assembly? So would women today wear the head covering only if they are leading or if they are praying without leading?

[@revolutionofordinaries]

It is impossible to answer that from the data presented so it is probably best to reach out to him and ask him directly. This might help with some of what you are wanting to know but an email might be best. renew.org/on-gender-and-the-bible-whats-up-with-head-coverings-in-1-corinthians-11-part-2/

[@robertbliss7221]

@@revolutionofordinaries Thanks Matt.

[@JusticeForWilmien]

@@robertbliss7221 Hi Robert! Did you recieve an answer from him?

[@johnplouffe3673]

I appreciate and listen with interest on the speech he gave on head coverings. That the man should have his head uncovered. And the woman should have her head covered both man and woman when they are praying or prophecying. And this practice go beyond culture and because of the angels that are present. And the angels are not cultural.

[@robertmiller812]

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.

[@ethanhunter4077]

Is there a way to get a copy of the presentation?

[@revolutionofordinaries]

I don't have a hard copy. I don't think so at this point without doing quite a bit of legwork.

[@revolutionofordinaries]

You might enjoy this from him - renew.org/on-gender-and-the-bible-whats-up-with-head-coverings-in-1-corinthians-11-part-2/

[@alicewall5363]

Very helpful. Thanks again!

[@revolutionofordinaries]

Glad it was helpful!

[@heidilees.4407]

I believe the best treatment of these passages has been from Pastor Alistair Begg on Truth For Life in his four part series in 2017 Man and Woman in Biblical Perspective 1Cor. 11:4-16. Having done the deep dive and scratching my own head about our recent back peddling into somewhat legalistic Christianity, his perspective offered the most clarity of context and application and I’d urge everyone undecided to listen to it all.

[@revolutionofordinaries]

I was just listening to him in the car on a drive just this week.

[@Well04fLife]

Hey Heidi. Any reference you can give to link us to the discussion by Alistair Begg?

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

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. That they are 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 a woman ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. If there where only two exclusive moments then one should have no problem if an “unveiled” woman speaks in tongues, interprets tongues, heals the sick, casts out devils, etc., right? Following such logic it stands to reason that the other instances that I mentioned should be acceptable WITHOUT a veil, right? Now should they say NO, then they should admit that there may be more instances; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, to be false. Please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that EXPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. People ASSUME this because they are misreading scripture. 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 she is uncovered, in other words not covered in long hair. Let’s follow the logic of verse 5 in a real life scenario. 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 really look at unveiled women as someone shaved? I am not saying this to be funny, but people have literally stated that an unveiled woman was likened to being shaved. Given that this comparison seems illogical one should consider that someone may be reading it wrong. For if “uncovered” means “short hair” then it fits the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair,” (aka short hair) then the verse would make more sense in that a woman with short hair might as well be shaved, since it is already short. So be honest, 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 than to being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman is somehow equal to being shaved. Please don’t dismiss this logic think about it for a minute. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. 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 as well as headship. Bit as far as the physical head is concerned 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 all of 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 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. If we are to make an exegesis to the words presented to us in the Bible then we should be able to easily understand them without having to start studying Greek. * 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 into 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. Again, don’t 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, that 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 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 ask you to NATURALLY or NORMALLY ASSUME or JUDGE that there is something wrong by OBSERVING a woman’s uncovered head (aka short hair) while praying and a man having long hair. 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 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 dishonoring 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 is 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. Keep in mind that short hair is NOT the same as being shaved. 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. Unfortunately people tend to get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seems like some kind of headwear but do not consider all the verses that show that the “covering” means long hair and that “uncovered” is 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?

[@plgrey]

Hair length is sometimes a choice but is often genetic. Even within one family, hair length varies. In some ethnic groups, growing long hair is impossible or at best can take decades. How then can this be about hair?

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

@@plgrey The context is all about hair. Long hair is written twice as is the word shorn and the word shaven once, which are related to hair or the lack thereof. Not sure if you follow the rule that one should understand the context of they are reading doing so you will find that the descriptions and wording all point to hair. You are just giving an explanation based on your thoughts on the genetics of hair, whereas I am pointing to verses that obviously show that the covering is long hair. I hope you can give a more "biblical" answer with scriptures to back up your thoughts as I do.

[@Kurt2222]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter I've recently gone down this rabbit hole. Thinking like what you have said. Did hebrew women have artificial covering under mosaic law? This is what we need to do, is look back to hebrew practices and see what was going on there to reinforce the long hair context. Because it seems like a woman always has to be wearing a veil just to pray at home or before or during a dangerous trip down the highway.

[@KatinIN]

So if the covering is hair, all men need to shave their heads to remove their coverings before prayer?🤔

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

​@@KatinIN You'd be surprised how many times people have mentioned this alleged discrepancy. 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. Another 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) especially LIKE praying or prophesying. What? Do you think Paul was saying it was ok to be “covered” while preaching, talking in tongues, interpreting tongues, casting out devils, singing to the Lord, worshiping the Lord, dancing, praising, etc. as long as it was not those two exclusive moments? It is obvious that the veil idea logically implies that if Paul were referring to a head covering then a man can wear a veil and a woman can be without one if it were ANY other condition. If we are going to be exclusive, then we ought to be consistent. Now, I can’t speak for you, but I have noticed that when presented with this logic to veil covering enthusiasts who believe in the “two condition” argument they suddenly find more “reasons” than just two and find ways to justify it. Just something I would like for you to keep in mind. 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. 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 are no nouns used 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. As you can see with simple logic and nothing but the Word of God can we see that God was referring to being covered in long hair. Be blessed and stick to Scripture.

[@hadassah179]

verry distracting mouth noise.

[@gramgrampmc.6937]

Painfully lacking.... But certainly some interesting history. That's about all I can give this

[@GodsOath_com]

Eve never wore a head covering in the garden. An Adam didn't cut his hair in the garden. Hair is nothing in the kingdom.

[@revolutionofordinaries]

That was long before it mattered.

[@GodsOath_com]

@@revolutionofordinaries it never mattered

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

@@GodsOath_com There is no doubt that you make a very valid point. The question is what to do with 1st Corinthians 11 and how is it applied? Obviously we cannot just brush it aside. The problem most people have is that they will read "cover the head" and ASSUME Paul was referring to a "head covering." The first is the action of covering the head whereas the other is a foreign object that one puts on their head. The fact is that Paul was just saying that women ought to cover their heads with long hair and men to not cover their heads with long hair. It is very simple and flows well with what you mentioned about how things might have likely been in the beginning of creation. That is how it is read when we read the reasons for the woman to cover her head and the man not to cover his head due to the order of creation.

[@npzwane9331]

​@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Honestly, if anyone tells you to cover your head you mean you can go and grow your hair? Or if anyone tells you to remove cover from your head you can go and shave your hair? The scripture is clear here. Just do as it tells you and stop being rebellious. Women have been covering their heads since time immemorial. It has just been after the arrival of constitutional freedoms that this has been presented as an issue

[@GatheringJacob]

You have no clue what they did in the garden! The text is silent so you should be silent as well without making assumptions! You can not make an argument from silence!

[@LifeLessons789]

If we look at Our Lady as Mother of God and the Immaculate Conception we begin to see the Holy Catholic Church as the body Of Christ. We honor the dignity of Our Lady by wearing a Veil as women. Our Lady shows women how as mothers,aunts,sisters and daughters we share in Her dignity.

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

kzbin.info/www/bejne/b4icqoejfq57bNk

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

🤦‍♂