Do Paul’s instructions about head coverings apply today, since he appeals to creation, not culture?

[@shelley6637]

It is relieving to hear Sproul speak on this and hold this position. I began covering only this year from an "out of the blue" feeling that made me feel I should. It led me to pray for clarity and guidance, research this topic fully and I've listened and read hours of information and commentary on it from numerous respectable sources. I highly respect Sproul and I'm thankful to have found this. No one in my church covers so it makes me feel a bit out of place to say the least, but never once have I felt that I should stop. Thank you again Ligonier Ministries!

[@8784-l3b]

Shelley My comments are above already to another poster. But I can paste them in here if requested. I comment on this subject a lot. The long hair of a woman is her 'covering'. I don't just say this as an opinion, but have several scriptures and some logic. Also an essay by another poster. “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much. -excerpt Luke 7 -words of Jesus, as a woman's hair was visible to Him and even touched Him

[@jc6270]

Amen. The Holy Spirit to lead me to this new way of honouring Christ. In a church of 3000+ on a Sunday, maybe three of us women use a head covering. The others visibly do it for fashion and attention. It is a very beautiful thing between us and our LORD. :) God blessings continued upon you my dear sister in Christ. I look forward to celebrating with you in heaven and on the new earth to come. :) ❤

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

I had the opposite effect in that the Lord led me to understand that people were misinterpreting the scriptures to mean a foreign object instead of allowing the scriptures to explain itself in the context of the passage. The word long hair is written twice, so was the word shorn and the word shaven is written once yet people want to still think that it has to do with a hat or veil. Hair fits very neatly into this as it "covers" the head.

[@barryallen119]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter 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.

[@barryallen119]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter 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.

[@Alex-uf7hi]

My wife chose to wear a head covering in church and I find it very beautiful and honouring to me as her husband and our Lord Jesus Christ

[@salvationbygracealone5111]

Nice!

[@lyssalouise2705]

@@salvationbygracealone5111 I like your profile name👍

[@matildamaher2650]

Good on her for wearing, I too wear

[@WESTON5628]

Isaiah 47:2-3 and Ezekiel 16:7 call the hair nakedness, I believe the bible calls women to cover all of their hair full-time.

[@mirjanabosnjak8064]

Covering is for prayer and prophesying. Not for listening a sermon. Please don't add to the Word

[@LampWaters]

I cover. My sin is vanity and pride and obedience and when I came to Christ I gave all of myself in submission to him. I choose to die and rise with Christ everyday and so when I cover my head each day I am giving thanks, honor and Glory to the one who leads me and saved me. I speak with the authority and conviction placed upon me in obedience to my King.

[@katiemurphy3601]

Amen! Thank you for sharing.

[@grannylynn3113]

My question is what kind of covering? I'm willing to cover, but I'm not sure how I should cover. I'm not muslim, but I'm not Jewish either. I have noticed the way they cover. I'm Christian and I see some women in church wear hats....is that proper head covering?

[@Tiffany_titus213]

@@grannylynn3113 hats, large headbands, scarves, and large head wraps/ bandanas. These are all ok!

[@earnestlycontendingforthef5332]

@@Tiffany_titus213 Just as long as the head is covered, not partially, but fully.......

[@earnestlycontendingforthef5332]

@@grannylynn3113 Just as long as the head is covered, not partially, but fully.

[@earnestlycontendingforthef5332]

The issue at Corinth was not whether long or short hair was an acceptable covering, but whether or not the head was covered or veiled. 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.

[@BaconPizza]

So do women need to wear a covering in church?

[@earnestlycontendingforthef5332]

@@BaconPizza Whenever they pray to God in the home or in the church assemblies.

[@BaconPizza]

@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 oh wow. I don’t know anyone who does that

[@earnestlycontendingforthef5332]

@@BaconPizza You will not find many! As the Lord Christ has declared..."For many are called....FEW are chosen"

[@BaconPizza]

@@earnestlycontendingforthef5332 how would you interpret that? God has called people but they have rejected him?

[@Herostatus1991]

it is still applicable, this is also why as a man you should take off your hat (if youre wearing one) to pray as it is ultimately a show of respect To God

[@hechale1]

well said

[@matildamaher2650]

Absolutely

[@lionel170]

I agree with your comment. The bible also tells us to pray without ceasing which means that men should not wear hats and pray without ceasing. And women should always cover their heads and pray without ceasing. Is that a fair comment? Please let me know.

[@BaconPizza]

@@lionel170 what does without ceasing mean?

[@AB-ComeLordJesus]

@@lionel170 It seems to be during corporate worship.

[@christianfreedman4641]

I totally agree with Mr. Sproul on this. Another interesting point in that passage of scripture is that not only were women instructed to cover their heads while praying or prophesying or they dishonor their head, which is their husband, but a man was told that if he covered his head while praying or prophesying, he dishonors his head, which is Christ

[@keishahenry8200]

Another interesting point is verse 11, where Paul states that none of the other churches holds this custom. people forget the real issue Paul had was their division in the church and heresy, eating of the Lord's supper unworthily and their lack of love for each other. Jesus said it best, strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

[@cokers4life]

@@keishahenry8200 The custom Paul is referring to is that the churches don't hold to the custom of arguing. Either you agree with the tradition Paul set or you don't, and if someone doesn't, fine. It isn't worth arguing about. It is why RC Sproul doesn't make a big deal about it because he is following the custom of not arguing.

[@TheLightShines]

@@cokers4life so is wearing a head covering necessary or...

[@Bible33AD]

@@TheLightShines God made a woman's hair. How is it honoring to cover His handiwork? Context. Context. Context. What was Paul being confronted with while trying to establish the early church?

[@joanna_0316]

@@TheLightShines If bible says so (and it does!) that women should wear a headcover while she prays or prophecies, it must be done.

[@debbieflorentine7024]

When did things change from “What saith the Word of God” to “What saith the uninspired commentators.” Feminism destroyed this beautiful outward symbol of submission and the church conformed to culture (we see what other ramifications conforming to the culture is having on the Church today).

[@robscorner4741]

Before Paul wrote that chapter where would the saints look to know to wear a head covering? Where would the OT women look to know God's requires a head covering?

[@Titus-2-Mom]

That was my thought as well. And the fact that Paul wasn't teaching on head coverings here, he was responding to questions from the Corinthians, as he did in the rest of the book.

[@actionjackson8439]

Paul is basing his instructions on information from the Apocalyptic literature of that time such as the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees which talks about the Angels procreating with human women. They had a fondness for long hair on women. The key verse is 1 Corinthians 11:10.

[@headcovering]

Great thoughts from R.C. Sproul here!

[@TKK0812]

The cultural argument of female prostitution has so many holes in it. One that people tend to forget as well is that men are not excluded from a command in this passage, which is to pray and prophesy uncovered. I've never been given a good answer to this from the cultural argument proponents. Was there also a temple of male prostitution Paul was worried about in Corinth at the time where all the men had head coverings? Also vitally important to remember that it's specifically to be practiced when praying or prophesying, which means it's likely in the context of fellow believers, which also means there would be no reason for Paul to worry about the women being thought of as prostitutes. He gives no command to practice it when out and about. 1 Cor 14:24 lends credence to the idea that church meetings likely did not include unbelievers, so there wouldn't be a 15 verse establishment of doctrine making appeals to what it does to establish differentiating this.

[@gloriagam2874]

Throwing out the assumption that it had anything to do with being seen as a prostitute, being seen as unwilling to submit is the key issue. That isn’t conjuncture. We can safely draw, exegetically, the need to cover or uncover as a man. Any additional argument is futile.

[@humbertogatica6420]

@@TKK0812 Thank you for making these points, the praying to prophesying was done in the meetings, in their homes, they knew each other, the women were members of the congregations, their mothers and sisters, so there was no way they were going to be thought of as prostitutes, plus Tronkoop, this was the reason RC gave for the head covering, it is speculation, not what Paul said. Regards.

[@oxAkatsubakixo]

The same Paul also say this: 1 Tim 2 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, *not with elaborate hairstyles* or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

[@2timothy23]

R.C. Sproul is correct on this matter; 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 in context speaks about a woman covering their head based on the spiritual foundation of verse 3. The Apostle Paul builds from that foundation all the way to the end of the chapter. If Paul wanted to explain or even allude to the culture of the time being the context, verse 3 wouldn't be there and Paul would've been clear about it. In addition, the culture over spiritual foundation context argument commonly used in these verses about head covering would not hold water if it were something else. By this argumentation, you could negate the Romans 1:26-27 warning about homosexuality and say it was cultural. You could negate women submitting to their husbands in Ephesians 5:22-24 and say it is cultural. You could do it with literally any verse if you don't like what the verses are saying. While culture certainly plays a part of some scripture, culture never overrides the scriptures, which are God-breathed and sufficient for all believers (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Sometimes the bottom line is that many women don't want to wear a covering because they don't like it, they will be embarrassed (perhaps not wanting to think there's a suppressive element to it like they think Muslims or Amish have), or they have a problem with submission. I am not trying to paint all people that object to this with a broad brush, but think about this; we have a problem with a woman wearing a head covering but have no problem with women wearing sensual or revealing clothes in the "name" of grace as if grace gives leeway to questionable actions and not freedom to follow the Lord's commands.

[@honeycomb9273]

Eric Smith It never talks about having a head covering, it says to have her head covered, and then it goes on to say that her hair is given to her for a covering and if she is going to cut it short then shave it all off,and that would be a disgrace for her. Paul is talking about a woman having long hair.

[@gaelquilts]

The bottom line is actually that truly converted women KNOW what modesty and submission is, and there is no defense to revealing clothing. We don't wear head coverings because we DONT have to.

[@2timothy23]

@@honeycomb9273 I understand how you may come to that conclusion, but the context and grammar of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 disagrees with you. In fact, there are multiple problems with that interpretation based on the context and grammar. Problem one: The word “covered” in verses 6, “cover” in verse 7 is the Greek word katakaupto, which is a combination of a Greek preposition kata, which has a variety of meanings such as down, against, , before, after, etc. and the Greek word kalupto, which means cover or hide. The Greek combination means to cover wholly or to veil; the word giving the meaning of veiling, hiding, or covering, in this case a person’s head. The word “uncovered” in verses 5 and 13 is the Greek word akatakaluptos, which is the negative description, the “a” in this making it not covered or not veiled. Both the “covered” and “uncovered” in the Greek is widely interpreted in the context of these verses as veiled or something that covers. I will explain in a moment why long hair doesn’t fit. Problem two: If the word “covered” in verse 6 means hair, then the verse says, “For if a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn (Greek word for sheared).” If covered means long hair, then not covered would mean short, so if a woman have short hair, then why should she also be sheared if her hair is already short. The grammar doesn’t support "covered" as being hair in this verse. This would also have to be consistent throughout the verses based on the meaning of "covered" and "uncovered" being hair, and the context doesn't support it. Which leads to the next problem: Problem three: Verses 3 and 7-12 give the reason for the exhortation for coverings; it is spiritual. Verse 3 speaks of spiritual submission and authority, verses 7-12 speaks of the creative order and about angels. Paul makes clear the reason for coverings has nothing to do with culture or even hair, but because of God. Yet Paul emphasizes the point of it being spiritual by comparing it to the natural, beginning in verse 14, which says, “Doth not even nature teach you…” showing that even the natural supports the spiritual; if a man has long hair, isn’t it a shame, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her because it is a covering (and by the way, this Greek word is completely different, it is peribolaion, which means something thrown around). While this word could pertain to clothes, the word has the meaning of throwing something around, which could also pertain to hair. And if Paul wanted to use this word covering for hair, he would’ve used it in verses 6 or 7, but he didn’t. In fact, Paul could’ve used the Greek word for hair in verses 14 and 15 in conjunction with that different Greek word of “covering” right after verse 3 to declaratively show that it was hair, but he didn’t. He only goes to the natural use of hair as a covering to validate the spiritual meaning of covering in verses 7-12. To impose the meaning of long hair as a covering from the start does damage to the context of the verses. Finally, church historians and leaders over church history understood the meaning of these verses to mean veiled or covered outside of hair. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are correct, but it also doesn’t mean they were wrong since many of them had a greater grasp of the original language than we do today. So based on content, context, grammar, and even church history, I respectfully disagree with your assertion. I understand in our modern way of thinking why wearing a head covering in church would be embarrassing, but we don’t want to make the Word of God say something different outside of its context.

[@2timothy23]

@@gaelquilts First, it isn't necessary to use caps to make your point unless you're trying to convey anger or you think I wouldn't understand. Second, you wrote, "We don't wear head covering because we don't have to." As a Christian, do you have a Bible verse to support that theological assertion? The scriptures are God-breathed and sufficient for all believers (2 Timothy 3:16-17); therefore any matter about God or His exhortations in the Bible should be backed by the Bible. If it isn't, then by default it is either our opinion or something philosophical based on man-centered traditions; both things violate Proverbs 3:5 and Colossians 2:8. I clearly read in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 about coverings and the spiritual reasons it should be done; could you please share the verses that say you don't have to wear a covering because I am not above correction, but the correction must come from God's Word, not opinion because opinion is subjective.

[@honeycomb9273]

Eric Smith I have a problem with women wearing sensual or revealing clothes, as Paul says we should dress modestly.

[@DiscipleShaynePlaylist]

Shalom. Isn't Paul explaining that Going to church is to spend time with God and with one another, to sing psalms and praises to hear from the Lord find out His will and to tend to the needs of others. If We are so easily distracted as humans and we live in dangerous times where we are called to avoid sin. To avoid stimulating temptations that might distract the gathering. Out of respect that God made woman to be mans helper. However in Genesis says she will want to control him. Perhaps then Skirts, tight fitting tops, scented flavours and flouting of flowing her given to her beauty was to be saved and shared with her partner or when at home or out and about, but not at church, to walk humbly before God yet come boldly with confidence in His loving kindness. 1 Corinthians 11:15 And isn’t long hair a woman’s pride and joy? For it has been given to her as a covering.

[@reflectionsinthebible3579]

I believe that the covering in that last verse is not a direct translation.

[@DiscipleShaynePlaylist]

@@reflectionsinthebible3579 And I believe its not about a translation...

[@xFCB4EVERx]

@@DiscipleShaynePlaylist read verse 5. her hair isn't her covering. The word peribolaion in greek means something different than katakalypto. Its sad that the englisch language doesn't make a distinction between those. The German does so its pretty clear. A better word in verse 15 would be veil not covering

[@cokers4life]

I'm glad to see this short clip of RC Sproul reiterating this teaching. I've been meeting so many beautiful godly women who have been blessed to have been led by the Holy Spirit to head cover at church. NT Wright actually mentions that this head covering was a beautiful privilege that reminded men that women now had the right to pray and prophesy corporately. Something that had been previously denied to women. Unfortunately, NT Wright appears to veers away from all logic when he says that we don't need head covering to be reminded of that any more. That is like saying we don't need the bread and the wine for the tradition of the Lord's Supper. We have the knowledge of its spiritual meaning so we don't need the physical elements. Well, no one would agree to that and I do wonder to NT Wright's response, but at least NT Wright was intellectually honest to recognize that head covering wasn't a cultural based decision but one based on creation, order and the privileges of men and women of God in the body of Christ. And women must recognize their weakness that though they have the joyful privilege of praying and prophesying, they must subject their prayers and prophesy to male authority.

[@chinthalapatyzimran8800]

Then why don't people in america follows the comand of head covering ?

[@hole_in_leftwing]

The same reason we’ve allowed the prosperity gospel to flourish. Comfortability and compromise.

[@warrior4truth829]

There are many of us that do obey 1 Cor 11 🙏🙏

[@lyssalouise2705]

Feminism

[@Disciple550]

We’ve stopped studying Gods word

[@Richardcontramundum]

All of the above! Seriously...the American church is filled with hypocrisy, worldly wisdom, and pragmatism.

[@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.

[@shellystone3211]

Here’s early church writing about VEIL read so I can understand In Irenaeus’ writing on heresies, he refers only to Valentinus’ views of verse10 in the section of I Corinthians 11. Paul had written έξουσίαν [ekousian, (power)] but Valentinus, the Gnostic, must have changed έξουσίαν [ekousian (power)] to κάλυμμα [kaluma (veil)] in the Western text to fit his own purpose. It may sound like a very little thing, but replacing only one word changes the content significantly. It would then read, “For this cause the woman ought to have a veil on her head because of the angels” instead of “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels”. This creates a conflict with verse fifteen, “For long hair is given to her as a covering”. Of cause, some people compromise this conflict by putting veil on the long hair.

[@dv4740]

But R C Sprouls interpretation is correct. Spurgeon said the same thing. It is a spiritual reason transceeding time an not a cultural one.

[@barryallen119]

In regard to how universally it was practiced among the early believers, Paul the Apostle was emphatic, “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” (1 Corinthians 11:16). If someone was wanting their own way and did not want to submit to this, Paul was saying to the Corinthian believers: if you want to be part of the Church, this is the way we are all obeying our Lord. We should realize there is grace in not being forced to do something, but if our Lord commanded it and all the Churches practice it, there is wisdom in the Lord’s timing to do the same. If we carried the same idea over to water baptism, and someone simply refused to do this, what would you think? You cannot have your own way, if you commit your life to the Lord, the simple clear command is to be baptized. There should be no fighting or arguing over this. To be dipped in water seems just as strange as to wear a piece of cloth covering the head in the eyes of the world.

[@kevin.malone]

I always have read that as, if anyone is contentious about having to wear a head covering, we have no such custom and will not require it of them.

[@barryallen119]

@@kevin.malone 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.

[@barryallen119]

@@kevin.malone Finally, the fact that the church unanimously understood Paul to mean an artificial covering until recent times is worthy of mention. Tertullian (160 - 215 AD), writing only 150 years after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians said that the church in Corinth was still practicing veiling in his day. He said, “So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve.” Hippolytus (170 - 236 AD) writing around the same time said “…let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth…”.

[@kevin.malone]

@@barryallen119 I'm confused, were you trying to reply to me? You don't seem to be talking about anything related to what I had said.

[@shellystone3211]

Here’s Paul’s answe on women covering their head Corinthians 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. Say the word covered in verse 13 and the word covering and verse 15 answer Says hair the hair that God created

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

"In regard to how universally it was practiced among believers..."The only thing that was universally practiced is the custom of women having their hair long and men's short. It is false to say that Paul was referring to veils or hats as though the idea of wearing a foreign object is somehow “universal”. The contentious part that Paul was referring to was the issue of using the wrong hair length by men and women. If someone was “wanting their own way and did not want to submit to something” it would be the idea of women choosing to have short hair (aka uncovered) and men choosing to have long hair (aka covered) instead of submitting to the order God made in regards to hair length, Not a veil Just because someone says that the Lord is commanding Churches to practice the wearing of veils does not make it true. But what if it’s someone’s interpretation of a doctrine then we have NO OBLIGATION to follow it. So many churches do this today on many subjects that it is a joke within the non-believing community that not even Christians can agree to several doctrines. Every church nowadays has its own take on doctrines, for example, it has been noted that if we carry the same idea (of not adhering to the doctrine of head covering) over to water baptism, that by refusing to be baptized in water we are somehow being disobedient? That if one wishes to “commit” their life to the Lord, one MUST be baptized because THEY think that WATER baptism is a command WHEN IT ISN’T. Any thinking and Bible-reading Christian should know by now that there is more than one kind of baptism. John the Baptist made it extremely clear early in the beginning of the gospels when he said “I baptize you with WATER but he who comes after me will baptize you with FIRE and the HOLY SPIRIT. Any lay Christian can understand there is a distinction. Reading any old dictionary shows that baptism means to be IMMERSED and not just by water as John is obviously helping us to understand. But unfortunately for some when they read the word baptism, they cannot separate water from this word. Therefore when Jesus said go and baptize others in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost he was not referring to water baptism. Confirmation of this is when Paul said: “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.” 1st Corinthians 1:14-17. Now of course this does not mean that one cannot be water baptized because it is fine to do so but neither should it be placed in the level of a command when that was never the case. For even Paul performed a few that he could barely recollect meaning he was NOT doing this on a regular basis like some sects want us to think should be the norm. There shouldn’t be any reason to think that being water baptized as strange but if you follow a misinterpretation then to an avid Bible reader it would not only be odd but wrong. It would be nice if there were no arguments about this or other doctrines but they still need to be confronted and there is nothing wrong with arguing about these subjects just as the disciples argued about whether men should be circumcised. “Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them (meaning it was not a small dissension or argument), they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.” Acts 15:2 So there is nothing wrong with arguing according to the Bible, but to make it appear that arguing is wrong in order to appear pious or more righteous is a mistake and devious.

[@LampWaters]

I don't see any pastors wives covering sadly.

[@grumpygrognard7292]

I believe there is some fear on their part that if they practice covering it will appear to the other ladies that they are forcing them to do it as well rather than encouraging them.

[@matildamaher2650]

It is sad, pastor’s wife should be an example to the church

[@christianmama2441]

@@matildamaher2650 Weak pastors, they are more afraid of mankind than of God. God will deal with them, we must pray for them. I am the only female that covers at church, people appeciate it but no woman has the conviction to do it yet.

[@doonagoding6146]

Derek Princes wife, Ruth covered!!

[@charlesb325]

If the principle being followed for why we must still follow it today is that it is 'rooted in creation', then what about the Sabbath? Why do we observe it on the first day of the week now and not the last? I understand the Scriptures that are brought up about when the Apostles/disciples gathered in John 20, Acts 2, Acts 20, and 1 Cor. 16, but unless I'm missing something these aren't necessarily explicit; certainly not as explicit as 1 Cor. 11 is on head coverings. In contrast, Exodus 20:8-11 seems quite clear in its giving of a creational reason for the observance of the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week. Genuine query that I would appreciate insights into.

[@susanalday4368]

Observe the Sabbath

[@Awsme]

Because Paul said it doesn’t matter what day we obverse the sabbath

[@shellystone3211]

Man says: if a woman doesn’t cover her beautiful hair God gave her……So that WE men and angels aren’t tempted by women……… when we look at woman……… because it’s her fault if we get tempted we’re gonna shave off her beautiful hair that God gave her This is not what God or Jesus or Paul says. 1. God and Jesus say: Mathew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Who does Jesus blame: That’s right the man not the woman

[@daywakeebickram6283]

Does God hear our prayers without head covering

[@Phil-bm4xo]

You’re absolutely correct! This passage is transcultural and very much applicable today, both in principle and practice.

[@earnestlycontendingforthef5332]

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

[@Ztaylor19]

Its ironic to me that those that say this text transcends culture do in fact transcend culture when they wear their own culture's ideas of what a head covering is. Are we wearing the type of coverings that Paul would have meant and had in mind when he was talking about covering? No. Most of the ones worn today are just a little flap of clothe on the top and part of the back of their head and still show all of the hair. The "glory". Defeating the entire point. If it's not transcultural women should be wearing the ones Paul was referring to that actually cover their hair. So I find the argument by those that say this text "transcends culture" to be misleading when they themselves transcend culture by imposing their own version of what a head covering is, which is obviously a different head covering than what Paul had in mind.

[@Phil-bm4xo]

@@Ztaylor19 Consistency is a rare jewel. When you take the Lord supper on the Lords day, do your emblems look exactly the same as the emblems that the first century church used? Of course not! While we use fruit of the vine and unleavened bread it can look different in shape, quantity, container, etc., from the first century. The same goes with the head cover. The Greek word /katakalupto/ for “cover,” is an action. It’s a verb! We are told to take the action of covering. The description of what we cover with is not included in the text. Therefore, there is liberty. What is the quantity of unleavened bread and fruit of the vine that we are to partake of each lords day? Exactly. We are not given quantities/amounts/size. Same with the cover in the first part of the chapter. We are not given specifics of what kind of cover to use, size, fabric, etc. those that try to push their belief that there is a specific kind we are to wear, or that it must mimic those in the first century do so with a personal narrative. Those that quibble about fabric and size do so because they simply do not want to do it, so they try to make it more difficult for those that do obey this instruction. If you’re going to quibble about the size of a cover, you should quibble about the size of the tiny piece of bread that you eat for the Lord supper and the tiny bit of a sip you drink for the Lord supper. The bottom line is are we fulfilling, the instruction with the Lord supper and the cover. If you aren’t, then you will have to give an account based on scripture, not an opinion. And just because we aren’t given specifics as to how much we are to ingest of the unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine do we just toss it away like we do the head cover? Do we just ignore the instruction to eat and drink of the Lord supper because we aren’t given specific quantities? Of course, we don’t. We follow it to the best of our ability based on Scripture, not supposition. And we surely don’t commit the sin of omission by ignoring it all together. Further, it is not a hair covering. It is a head covering. It is something we wear on our head as a symbol. It is not meant to cover our hair. When hair is referred to as a glory in verse 15, it is used as an example to support Paul’s argument. It’s simply a comparison to the artificial covering that Paul describes in the early part of this instruction. It is not to teach the reader to cover every ounce of their hair. That’s ridiculous and you’ve missed the point of the instruction. Culture may change HOW a symbol appears (i.e. plastic containers used for the Lord supper) but culture does eliminate a symbol God has ordained as sacred.

[@Ztaylor19]

​@@Phil-bm4xo Oh boy. I clearly struck a nerve. I will try to respond in good faith. Obviously I understand the importance of symbols and fulfilling certain things today in obedience without knowing all the specifics. The difference in the things you mentioned and in the head coverings is that we know with certainty what Paul meant by head covering (shawl) which would have covered all their hair, and on other things we don't. The Greek is clear - literally "shawl". He makes a clear and direct statement/connection about the hair being the glory of the woman which would have been covered totally by the shawl. So I am not "quibbling" about the size of a head cover. What you call "ridiculous and missing the point" seems to me like a legitimate point to question whether Paul meant literally covering their "glory". "Culture may change HOW a symbol appears (i.e. plastic containers used for the Lord supper) but culture does eliminate a symbol God has ordained as sacred." First of all, the containers used for the Lord's Supper are never mentioned by Paul or Jesus by anyone at any point and they do not symbolize anything. That's a poor example and not even comparable to what we're talking about - apples to oranges. Secondly, comparing and seemingly equating head coverings to the Lord's Supper and calling them both "sacred" is pretty absurd. The Lord's Supper is an oft-mentioned sacrament and commandment that should be held in higher esteem than a controversial text on head covering that is only mentioned once in the NT. "If you aren’t, then you will have to give an account based on scripture, not an opinion". Ok sure, here is my account based on scripture. The larger issue/questions I have about the head coverings has more to do with the context in the text that is ignored. It's clear in the text that head coverings are mentioned in the context of "praying and prophesying". Interesting that part is always ignored. Just think about it. If Paul meant praying and prophesying (aka teach/preach) in the local church, he would be contradicting himself since he has already forbid women to teach/preach in church (1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 14:34). Either we would have to acknowledge Paul is contradicting himself in saying that women can in fact prophesy/preach/teach in church, and when they do they should cover their head, or you have to consider he wasn't talking about actual local church assembly. The Greek translation (highly recommend reading Read Wuest's expanded greek translation) in 1 Cor 11 verses 4, 5, and 16 implies in a "public assembly", but in verse 17 (when talking about the Lord's Supper), he describes that gathering distinctly as a "local assembly". Interesting distinction! In other words, the text on head coverings is literally saying the *opposite* of what you and others argue today for the local church. Those verses are specifically talking about in the "public assembly" - NOT local church gathering. In which case nobody in Western Christian culture is actually following what Paul is telling us to do because women don't cover their hair in settings outside the church when they pray or prophesy outside the church/in public (outside the church being the only setting appropriate for women to prophesy based on Paul's previous teaching I mentioned). 1 Cor 11 verse 4 greek translation (with Wuest clarifying comment/context in the bracket) "Every man while praying or prophesying [giving out the word of God in the public assembly]... V 13 "Is it seemly or fitting for a woman to be engaged in prayer to God not wearing the shawl hanging down over her head?"...V 16 continued..."If, as is the case, anyone presumes to be cantankerous [about the moral obligation of a woman to wear a head covering when engaged in public prayer in the assembly], as for us we do not have that custom [namely, that of a woman praying with uncovered head]." V 17 Moreover, when giving you this charge, I am not praising you, because you are not coming together [in the local assembly] for the better but for the worse. V 2-16 is referring to public assembly. V17 onward (shifting to the Lord's Supper) local church assembly. I'm not "quibbling' or saying things based on "opinion" or "tossing away" or being "ridiculous" as you accuse me in an unfair way. There are legitimate questions about this text, including the irony that you criticized so sharply.

[@Phil-bm4xo]

@@Ztaylor19 talk about striking a nerve, lol. I get you really don’t want this passage to be applicable today. All one needs to do is read the text. The passage is a very clear. There is no “certainty ” as you say what Paul wanted every woman to cover with and every man not to cover with? The word is literally a verb. It’s an action, not a noun as you want to describe. Just as water baptism does not specify what kind of water we are to use or where the water should be, the cover, and the Lord supper, or given the same latitude. You are pressing something into the text that just is not there. I gave a very valid point when it comes to quantity of the Lord supper, you just want to dismiss it because it doesn’t fit your narrative. You still cannot describe how much bread and wine we are to consume at the Lord supper because it’s not in the text. Similarly, just as we are given an action to partake of the cup, that cup will look different today than I did in the first century. Let’s be consistent when it comes to the action of covering. The passage is talking about wearing a symbol on your head, not covering your hair. You say more than the text says to include that all the hair has to be covered. It’s laughable to hear you insist on this because all one needs to do is look at the artwork in Roman history to see that all of their hair was not covered. There’s no arguing with that so you can give your opinion all day long but ALL of the hair does not need to be covered. That’s simply your opinion. and yes, you’ve missed the point of the entire passage to press your narrative into it. Don’t believe in the inspired word, and toss the passage like most do. That’s your choice but I’d be careful teaching your false doctrine. You’ll be held accountable for it.

[@daywakeebickram6283]

Do we need to wear heading covering to pray even at home

[@lquinn410]

Great question! Paul also tells us to pray without ceasing.

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

The great news is that there is no need to wear anything at all Paul was referring to long hair as the covering. If you read the verses and note that to cover means to be covered in long hair and to be uncovered means to with short hair you will note how much more the verses make sense.

[@doonagoding6146]

Why not?😊

[@Ztaylor19]

I have some questions. I get the argument of creation/order, and glory, etc. I understand all that. But the head covering text specifically says "when praying and prophesying" women are to wear head coverings (1 Cor 11:4-5). Not seemingly as a general rule, and I've never heard that aspect of the text addressed. I do believe women should not speak aka teach/preach in church (1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 14:34). So you either have to acknowledge Paul is contradicting himself in saying that women *can* in fact prophesy/preach/teach in church (after being clear in other letters they can't 1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 14:34) and when they do they should cover their head, or you have to consider that he wasn't talking about actual local church assembly (which means that, ironically, if you believe that women are not to pray or prophesy in church, one could argue that it therefore logically follows that this text is talking about everywhere BUT church). Is it talking about public places when a woman proclaims Christ to unbelievers, she is to cover her head? Is it saying that anytime a woman prays, including in her home, she is to wear a head covering, or maybe just in the presence of her husband? What if she is single? What about silent and/or private prayers? I'll add that in Wuest's Greek translation he notes that in 1 Cor 11 verses 4, 5, and 16 it is implied as a "public assembly" but in verse 17 (when no longer speaking on head coverings), he describes that gathering as a "local assembly". Which I found interesting. Any help would be appreciated.

[@8784-l3b]

I'll post my thoughts. Next will be a essay by FA. Reply if desired. The long hair of a woman is the 'covering'.

[@8784-l3b]

Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. -NASB version If the above scripture means a turban, for example, why would God require the priests to wear turbans? Paul certainly would have known about this and maybe seen it. You shall speak to all the skillful people whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may serve as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of checkered work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to Me. -excerpt Exodus 28 Jesus prayed with something on His head while on the cross. A crown of thorns. And they dressed Him in purple, and after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; and they began saluting Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!” -excerpt Mark 15 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” And having said this, He died. -excerpt Luke 23 ******************************************* At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we? “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much. -excerpt Luke 7 Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone... -excerpt John 12 ************* It can only mean the hair is the covering, as the NASB states here: Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. ************ No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. Therefore no Old Testament reference available. 1 Corinthians 11 starts with this: ...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you... Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered... So, there was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. There was no time to establish a tradition of a fabric covering. There was no way to "hold firmly to the traditions" because you can't start a 'tradition' in a period of time that is just a few years. ************ If the covering was a physical covering, then hair length is irrelevant. No one would know if the woman had long hair or no hair. ************ Also, if a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before she can communicate with God, that would make the fabric covering an idol. But one could also say it was a talisman I suppose, since a talisman could be an article of clothing. Talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is believed to have spiritual or magical properties. The object will align with your intention for its use. Every time you look at a talisman, your mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes a necessary ritual. ************ There is also an essay by 'FA'. It's about a 5 minute read. The full essay is available if requested. Once again one must keep in mind when reading the essay, that women were not using a fabric covering as a requirement of the Law. So it was not part of the culture then. That is confirmed by the events of Jesus with the 2 women above and also the scriptures that discourage women from braiding their hair. If women were commonly wearing a head covering in public no one would have known about this braiding. Their head and hair would have been covered by the fabric. ...likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,... -excerpt 1 Timothy 2 ESV Do not let your adorning be external-the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear- but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart... -excerpt 1 Peter 3 ESV Excerpt here of post by FA: If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? " If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing?

[@8784-l3b]

(originally posted by FA) * Where the problem usually begins… (I) If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils then it can be argued that the most often cited verse in this teaching is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse implies that a woman’s uncovered head is someone who does not wear a veil, is wrong for failing to wear it and assumes that such a person already has long hair. Therefore, the conclusion is that it must be referring to an “additional” covering. Another conclusion is that if a woman ought to be covered only when praying and prophesying then it would seem as though it is something that can be taken on or off like a veil. A typical question from those who are against hair being “the covering” is usually something like this: “If a woman ONLY needs to cover during prophecy or prayer, then how can a woman take off her hair and then put it back on?” The logical response to this is: Where did you read the word: "Only?" Such a person assumes the Bible refers to an “exclusive condition” instead of viewing it as simply two examples being given. IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN THIS “EXCLUSIVITY INTERPRETATION” then an UNVEILED woman should be fine if they speak in tongues, interpret tongues, heal the sick, cast out devils, etc., right? As long as the woman is NOT praying or prophesying, then she need not wear a veil, right? If your answer is NO, then you admit that there are likely more instances where it would not look right and do not truly believe that ONLY under praying or prophesying does a woman need to be covered; thereby making the argument that the covering is removable based on two conditions, moot. So what can we say about this? Just that Paul is giving us a couple of examples of how doing something holy does not look right if she is uncovered, in other words not covered in hair. The question is: Is he really referring to the lack of a veil or the lack of hair meaning not having long hair? Also, please keep in mind that the word “veil” is not actually mentioned here, neither anything that IMPLICITLY states that the covering is something can be placed on or taken off. Here’s something to consider: imagine a woman with long flowing hair praying and prophesying without a veil. Would the lack of a veil really equate to someone as if they were shaven? Why would anyone come to this conclusion? It would seem a bit odd that a woman with long hair who is not wearing a veil should somehow be equated to being shaved. This is most certainly an odd thought pattern if we accept the veil interpretation. But it does fit the narrative of those who understand the word “uncovered” to mean “not covered in long hair” or simply put, “short hair.” Looking at a woman with short hair one can easily say that she might as well be shaved. So be honest, doesn’t it make more sense that when they refer to an uncovered woman they are referring to a woman with short hair? Wouldn’t that be MORE closely relatable to being shaven than to someone who has long hair but not wearing a veil being equated to someone shaved? To put it in another way it is not a big leap to make the correlation between short hair to being shaven, unlike being asked to make a GIGANTIC LEAP OF LOGIC that an unveiled woman (even with long flowing hair) is somehow equal to being shaved. Think about it. * Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. (II) If we examine all the verses from verse 4 to 15 without bias we should at least conclude that the passages have something to do with the physical heads of both men and women. The question we should ask is: When they refer to “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” are they referring to hair that covers the head or some kind of veil? Some will even say both, but if we carefully examine verse 15 it would seem that we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions the words, “covered,” “cover” and “uncovered." “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." If the covering is long hair then the words “covered” or “cover” which are synonymous to “covering,” should be understood as long hair as well. Then it makes sense when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered” because they are referring to long hair. Now logically speaking wouldn’t being “uncovered” or “not covered” then mean short hair? Therefore, if to be covered refers to “long hair” then the opposite should be true, in that to be “uncovered” should be understood as having “short” hair. This is not complicated at all to understand it is basic logic. * You Should Naturally Know Right From Wrong by Just Looking…. (III) If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?" If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing? I have never seen or heard anyone say: "What a shame she is not wearing a veil on her head” after looking at a woman with long hair while praying or prophesying, that would be ludicrous. There is no NATURAL or NORMAL reasoning to make such a judgment. But if the word “uncovered” were to mean "short hair." then it would make logical sense. Because if I see a woman who has a manly haircut doing these holy things like we read in verse 5, then I can naturally judge that something doesn’t look right. Also, the very next verse continues this line of thinking that things should be obvious to understand by mere observation in nature. "Doth not even NATURE itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." 1st Corinthians 11:14 Note that verses 13 and 14 are two consecutive questions both of which asks you to NATURALLY ASSUME that there something wrong by SEEING a woman’s head to be uncovered (meaning having short hair) and a man having long hair (meaning being covered). I would like to also add that it is NOT jumping from a “veil” in 13 and then suddenly to “hair” in 14 like some would like to suggest, because you will note that verse 15 refers back again to the woman which FLAT OUT STATES the “covering” to mean “long hair.” Therefore there is NO EXCUSE to not understand the previous verses. By this simple understanding we can then understand the part where it states that it is shameful or dishonoring for a man to pray or prophesy with his head covered, meaning covered in long hair, like in verses 4: “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” This “dishonoring” of the head fits perfectly with verse 14 where it mentions that it is “shameful“ for a man to have long hair, therefore the topic is the same throughout the verses in that the head covered in this verse refers to “long hair. ” I should also add that these verses in NO WAY imply that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue. It’s SIMPLY SAYING that it is a dishonor if a man prays or prophesies in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off but that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 6: “For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it’s simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I can only imagine how lost one must be when they are stuck on one or two verses that to them seems questionable but not take into consideration all the other verses that point to the “covering” as long hair and “uncovered” to mean short hair. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? Again, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. In short, therefore, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected.

[@leninjohn1981]

Great answer from RC

[@thewatcher96]

Andrea stated "I got my answers from someone who actually knows Greek and they explained the verse" I get my answers from the Greek *Scholar* translaters of the KJV Bible which has been used for hundreds of years to teach and guide myriads of faithful Christians. Which was accepted for nigh on 2,000 years. Then came the rise of secular aggressive feminism in the 1970s which has been causing controversy over head-coverings ever since....Work it out for yourself....😊

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

🤔🙄

[@stephengreater1689]

Let's not forget imputed righteousness peoples.

[@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 11:3a). 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 wife (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.” 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 six would read if we substituted “hair” or “long hair:” “If a wife (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.

[@BereanBaker]

Completely agree.

[@MariusVanWoerden]

Women were covering their head when they went outside their home. Churches at the time gathered in friend’s and family’s homes. Romans 16: 5 Likewise greet the Church that is in their house. Salute my beloved Epaenetus, which is the first fruits of Achaia in Christ. In the home a woman would not have to cover her head. However, Paul says: “When we come together to pray and prophesy or preach, the woman being in the house of friends should during such gatherings even in the home have to cover their head out of reverence, and not to distract others. It also should not be a man-style hat but a shawl around the head fully covered. Christian women do not cover their head on the street and while shopping. Which is just as important, start there first, and then in the church gathering. I grew up with women in church having covered their head, but it is going away these days. I’m not so sure if that is so bad, there are things much worse going on like, wearing worldly clothing of Confessing Christians. Large families are gone in the church. 1 Corinthians 11: 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth bareheaded, dishonoreth her head: for it is even one very thing, as though she were shaven.

[@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 is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.

[@GodsWordisTruth-zg1jj]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Wonderful thanks for the info.

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

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!

[@shellystone3211]

Early Church women did not cover their heads unless they wanted to for safety issues like in old testament

[@Ztaylor19]

Its ironic to me that those that say this text transcends culture do in fact transcend culture when they wear their own culture's ideas of what a head covering is. Are we wearing the type of coverings that Paul would have meant and had in mind when he was talking about covering? No. Most of the ones worn today are just a little flap of clothe on the top and part of the back of their head and still show all of the hair. Their "glory". Defeating the entire point. If it's not transcultural women should be wearing the ones Paul was referring to that actually cover their hair. So I find the argument by those that say this text "transcends culture" to be misleading when they themselves transcend culture by imposing their own version of what a head covering is, which is obviously a different head covering than what Paul had in mind. Is that a valid thought or am I going crazy?

[@8784-l3b]

(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.) In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. My thoughts: post length 7 minutes Reply for post if desired. It includes scriptures and commentary.

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

So sorry to hear how R.C. Sproul did not understand this piece of Scripture. 1 Cor 11 is clear that Paul was referring to hair as evident from his usage of the word Hair 3x and shorn and shaven 4x. Fortunately more people are reading the scripture and not following the false doctrines made by men. This is a better video on the topic....kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppbdaohnq9ibd9k

[@doonagoding6146]

If it were hair only, then why an instruction to have head covered during prayer? Make sure you have long hair prior to praying?!

[@philipbuckley759]

sounds like the fallacy of the bandwagon appeal.....not any textual evaluation....

[@shellystone3211]

Paul says the beautiful hair that God gave her is her glory and a covering Paul instructs churches on dress of women And how to wear their hair (not like the pagans) braided with gold. Women wouldn’t be getting instructions on how to wear your hair if you were supposed to cover it up.

[@joshuacarter4590]

If Jesus didn’t preach on it or cover it then it’s not important. It’s not required. It’s not commanded and it’s not necessary. Just another ritual for Pharisees to argue over. The good news is about Jesus, not Paul.

[@dv4740]

Paul even said that this command is by god and not of him......

[@joshuacarter4590]

@@dv4740 you are missing the point. It has nothing to do with salvation so ultimately it doesn’t matter.

[@dv4740]

@@joshuacarter4590 it is indeed less important than the most topics but how about that: Christ didn't preach on it (to the Jews) because at that time headcovering was totally the standard. Paul needed to address these topics especially to non Jews converted to the faith.

[@joshuacarter4590]

@@dv4740 Christ made is very very obvious that the soul is what matters. Love is what matters. His death for us and his mercy is what matters. The rest is good to know but we are ALL sinners who will still sin so does a head covering matter? No... it doesn't. People should do it if they want to and they feel that it honors God in their own way. Just like some men think beards are a way to honor God's view of men. It IS NOT required for salvation just like baptism IS NOT required for salvation. Ultimately small cultural beliefs such as head covering should be respected but is not required by everyone. Some believe that this is required for salvation and miss the ENTIRE point Jesus what making in his ministry. Some belief following these kind of things makes them special or set apart from those who do not. Not so and never was. The focus is Jesus Christ not small petty rules that pharisees and false prophets want to enforce on others by claiming that it is required which is rediculous since it is a lie.

[@shellystone3211]

paul trying to stop the argument Church about whether or whether or not to cover your head that’s when his letter all about in Chapter 11

[@daywakeebickram6283]

I need to know, this is what bugs me alot

[@8784-l3b]

Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. -NASB version If the above scripture means a turban, for example, why would God require the priests to wear turbans? Paul certainly would have known about this and maybe seen it. You shall speak to all the skillful people whom I have endowed with the spirit of wisdom, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him, that he may serve as priest to Me. And these are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a tunic of checkered work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for your brother Aaron and his sons, so that he may serve as priest to Me. -excerpt Exodus 28 Jesus prayed with something on His head while on the cross. A crown of thorns. And they dressed Him in purple, and after twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on Him; and they began saluting Him: “Hail, King of the Jews!” -excerpt Mark 15 And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I entrust My spirit.” And having said this, He died. -excerpt Luke 23 ******************************************* At least twice a woman's hair was not only visible to Jesus Himself, but it touched Him. Neither woman was rebuked. Since Jesus didn't care about fabric head coverings why should we? “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven-for she loved much. -excerpt Luke 7 Mary then took a pound of very expensive perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, the one who intended to betray Him, said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the proceeds given to poor people?” Now he said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he kept the money box, he used to steal from what was put into it. Therefore Jesus said, “Leave her alone... -excerpt John 12 ************* It can only mean the hair is the covering, as the NASB states here: Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. ************ No Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. Therefore no Old Testament reference available. 1 Corinthians 11 starts with this: ...hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you... Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I handed them down to you. But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered... So, there was no Old Covenant law requiring women to wear a fabric covering. There was no time to establish a tradition of a fabric covering. There was no way to "hold firmly to the traditions" because you can't start a 'tradition' in a period of time that is just a few years. ************ If the covering was a physical covering, then hair length is irrelevant. No one would know if the woman had long hair or no hair. ************ Also, if a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before she can communicate with God, that would make the fabric covering an idol. But one could also say it was a talisman I suppose, since a talisman could be an article of clothing. ************ There is also an essay by 'FA'. It's about a 5 minute read. The full essay is available if requested. Once again one must keep in mind when reading the essay, that women were not using a fabric covering as a requirement of the Law. So it was not part of the culture then. That is confirmed by the events of Jesus with the 2 women above and also the scriptures that discourage women from braiding their hair. If women were commonly wearing a head covering in public no one would have known about this braiding. Their head and hair would have been covered by the fabric. ...likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire,... -excerpt 1 Timothy 2 ESV Do not let your adorning be external-the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear- but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart... -excerpt 1 Peter 3 ESV Excerpt here of post by FA: If these verses do not move you yet then here’s one that should definitely blow your mind. Paul asks you to make a judgment call in verse 13 as if one should naturally see a problem because he asks you to: "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? " If “covering” really meant a veil then one would have to explain why anyone would possibly come up with a judgment that a woman praying or prophesying WITHOUT A FABRIC VEIL ON THEIR HEAD WOULD LOGICALLY OR NATURALLY LOOK WRONG? Someone needs to explain this logically. Be honest, does looking at someone doing this naturally create a thought that a veil is missing?

[@8784-l3b]

Did my reply help?

[@WESTON5628]

Isaiah 47:2-3 and Ezekiel 16:7 call the hair nakedness, I believe the bible calls women to cover all of their hair full-time.

[@humbertogatica6420]

That is in the Old Testament, the rules for the Hebrews. The subject is about Paul's teaching

[@shellystone3211]

In the Bible God did not tell man to have more than one wife

[@stephanietunc2240]

So if you have short hair you wear a cover all the time, if your hair is long don't cover it since it's considered a women's mantle. But at church you wear a cover through the worship? I want to be sure because I'm going into Christianity with full submission.

[@janeEyreAddict]

Hair is not a covering, check out "the head covering movement". The founder wrote a book on it that was really helpful and then you can study on it yourself. We are to wear a head covering when praying or worshipping

[@xFCB4EVERx]

read verses 5 and 6 again. the greek words for covering are different to word used in verse 15. King James is just a poor translation on that occasion. In verse 15 the word for covering should be translated with veil. Otherwise the is no logic with verses 5,6 and 15

[@LauraJohnson-to7vp]

Headcoverings are a command and it is never a position for a Christian to decide when to obey or not(Duteronomy 11:1). When Christians start saying this or that is a cultural thing, like Headcoverings, wheres the line? We can change anything to be a "cultural thing"... In reality saying something is a cultural thing is say we can discredited scripture to fit in with the culture and that scripture is outdated! Which I Heresy! Scripture is the same yesterday today today always,, never changing. Headcovering where practiced by the church and God's people till the early 1900's then scripture changed with the Feminist movement. Feminist movement has influenced the church more then the gospel on many things!

[@8784-l3b]

A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. Multiple translations state that. ___________________________________________ Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. -NASB ********************************************************* doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her; ... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) 1 Corinthians 11 verse 13-15

[@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 is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is verse 7: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.

[@pioneeringwilliams5054]

Let her cover bc of the angels.

[@thisgeneration2894]

Amen

[@shellystone3211]

Why did other cultures cover their head why did the Jews cover their head both men and women this will help you to understand Paul’s teaching

[@agripasiame6007]

Head covering its not a culture its God's command. Job 32:6 And Elihu the son of Barachel the Buzite answered and said, I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion.5 6 7 I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom. 8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding. 9 Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgment. 10 Therefore I said, Hearken to me; I also will shew mine opinion.You got to repent

[@ReliantonJesus]

So thankful for R.C. Sproul and his faithfulness to standing on what he saw from scripture! Reading 1 Corinthians 11 is so clear, my wife now covers her head, and I have been emboldened to speak the truth on it. Here is a video on the topic: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6XOgqWea7NpbqMsi=5NqvbCTngivlgpkF

[@shellystone3211]

Before Fall…….See Genesis 1:28. God gave them joint dominion ( authority to rule the world) A matter of fact they share the same name of Adam Eve was not named Eve until after the fall. See Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. That’s why they were 1 flesh and had 1 head and that’s why Jesus taught that and Paul taught that. After the fall: There was an invisible Veil placed over Eves head…….It took her authority away that God gave her and put it under her husbands Yet….it would be her choice now whether or not she would listen to with her husband (This is how it reads in Hebrew) God also PLACED a VEIL (for man) inside the the Tabernacle then Temples that were built to separate himself from mankind When Jesus came the veil was ripped in 2 Opening the way back to God….thru Jesus There is no more VEIL And Paul is teaching the Jews in the church who are arguing over headcovering………by saying it goes back to the way of creation nature when God created Adam and Eve Maybe the Holy Spirit can explain it to you this way

[@cindyricksgers6478]

What does covering mean? I see some women wearing these tiny little doilies way in back you can't even see them unless they turn around.

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

Covering means long hair. "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." 1st Cor 11:15 I agree that even within those who believe in a synthetic covering they seem not to follow their own beliefs by using a tiny covering for an entire head. Fortunately the Bible clearly states what the covering is and never once mentions a hat or veil or cloth or fabric. It just says a woman ought to cover her head which is used as a verb not a noun. So if the covering ins long hair then to cover means to be covered in long hair and to be uncovered is the opposite which means short hair.

[@Ahgsb456]

But I thought these people always they’ll do whatever bible says and all of a sudden this head covering business become an issue. If the bible says women should cover their heads they should it’s plain simple. Don’t complicate it.

[@8784-l3b]

(I didn't watch this video but am familiar with this subject.) ...because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her... In your own selves judge ye; is it seemly for a woman uncovered to pray to God? doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man indeed have long hair, a dishonour it is to him? and a woman, if she have long hair, a glory it is to her, because the hair instead of a covering hath been given to her;... -Young's Literal Translation (YLT) A woman's long hair is the 'covering'.

[@SlipKnotRicky]

So, if a woman's long hair is given for a covering(Vs 15), is that a sufficient covering for worship? If she has short hair should she cover her head? Should Cowboys take off their hat in the "Cowboy Church"?

[@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.

[@LampWaters]

U can't take off ur hair. It says if not covered then should be shaved. u can't take off ur hair and shave it. Hair is not a covering, hair it says is her glory, not God's glory. A man can't remove his hair when he prays, if that's the case all men must be shaven always. It's not talking about hair and examining linguistically will clarify that.

[@SlipKnotRicky]

@@LampWaters Did you read verse 15? "1 Corinthians 11:15, KJV: "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.""

[@jeffrachelburkhalter3783]

@@SlipKnotRicky Our hair is our natural covering (glory) and the cloth covering is for praying and prophesying (power on our heads, because of the angels) and we are told to pray without ceasing. If our hair is already short, we can't cut it off. We cannot put on and take off our natural covering.

[@shellystone3211]

Now that we’ve established that vails were used in pagan culture and by the Jews let’s talk about the church and what Paul taught

[@earnestlycontendingforthef5332]

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

[@shellystone3211]

Also Paul did not teach to cover your head he taught not to cover your head for both men and women when he talks about covering your head he is stating Jewish law You know that because he says the word law in the text which means he’s talking to Jewish people

[@cbedford2699]

Was the short hair for the temple prostitutes i thought. But moot point perhaps. He gave the point unless it is not shameful for a woman to have short hair, then cover.

[@TKK0812]

1. This temple was destroyed by the Romans in 150 BC and Paul wrote this letter around 50 AD. The Greek geographer Strabo also wrote about this temple and spoke of it in the past tense. He died around around 23 AD. I think its safe to assume this wasn't influencing the culture anymore. 2. Paul's appeal is to the Godhead and nature to establish the doctrine, not culture or prostitution. 3. The covering is commanded while praying or prophesying, which means its within a church context, which means there would be almost no point in making sure everyone knew the women weren't temple prostitutes. 4. Paul says that if anyone is contentious, the churches of God have no other practice, which means the practice was recognized by all churches, which would mean any ties to Corinth and temple prostitution would go out the window. 5. The text is pretty clear in it's simplest reading, so the burden of proof would be on the person who said its because of culture. I find those arguments to be speculation at best and the evidence would need to be extremely overwhelming to outweigh the clear reading of the passage as well as the theological underpinnings Paul establishes them in. I think it's an impossible argument. 6. Don't forget that men are commanded to not have their heads covered, so would the cultural arguments also contain an idea that there was a temple full of male prostitutes who covered their heads and that now necessitates men uncovering? Some of my thoughts! Blessings, Bedford.

[@80americarlos]

I say they ought to cover those noggin’s. My pastor told me that he directed his daughter to cover her noggin, even though she refused. He said, “then you’re staying home.” She later came covered up. He also taught me at my once Men’s Leadership training class, that if she desires to not cover her head, that she should shave her head as smooth as a billiard ball. 🎱.

[@casapilotsaustralia3599]

Women to stay silent in church?

[@yaqarianfanashira]

Yes

[@shellystone3211]

I’ve never followed this man personally I think his interpretation of the Scriptures are not correct if he can’t get this scripture right he obviously isn’t getting other scriptures correct

[@lukewagner8871]

1 Corinthians 11:7-10 ESV [7] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. [8] For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. [9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. [10] That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Isaiah 4:1 KJVS [1] And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.

[@shellystone3211]

Ancient view

[@dahelmang]

That's not an answer

[@holychildofgod3778]

Women should cover their hair while prophesying.

[@dahelmang]

@@holychildofgod3778 why only when prophesying?

[@holychildofgod3778]

@@dahelmang Because they are speaking of the things of God, and while praying, because they are talking to God, The head veil is a sign of submission to her husband and his authority over her, as the angels submit to God and have his authority over them. Praise God for his perfect order in love and understanding.

[@dahelmang]

@@holychildofgod3778 so while praying as well? What about the rest of the church service?

[@holychildofgod3778]

@@dahelmang paul says multiple things: 1. women are to cover their heads while prophesying or praying 2. prophets are to speak one at a time in church 3. women are to be silent in the church That means: 1. when women were gathered in a private meeting, or outside, and they wanted to pray or prophesy, they needed to cover their heard. 2. Men who are prophesying or praying in the church should have nothing over their heads. 3. In the church, because women are silent, and are not allowed to speak or teach, there is no need for them to cover their heads, as far as I understand this correctly right now. But women are never allowed to be shepherds, pastors, elders, or leaders in any church of God, but they are to be submissive to their husbands (or their fathers, if they are not married) as the Law of God says. PS: this is my current understanding, it could change in the future, regarding women having to wear head veils in the church also.

[@barend4803]

Very good. Only reason why men don't say this today to the congrefation and their wives is because they don't have enough spine.

[@casapilotsaustralia3599]

Women not allowed to speak in church

[@achildofthelight4725]

We were created naked, there was no head covering of cloth, yet head covering in the bible is about respecting your elders and the head of the family starting with God. Women who had there hair shaved were scorned, they would also grow their nails as that also looked vile when dirty. No man would look at them in that state. Hair was a sign of beauty and should be shown off.... just as we were created.

[@achildofthelight4725]

@@sujithmedari1852 make sure everyone is covered in your prayer.... don't be selfish and pray for yourself.

[@colton7373]

M Warren I don’t think praying for ourself is selfish in a general sense: if the prayer is only indeed to commune with our Father in heaven, not for selfish gain. I say this with confidence because of the amount of prayers in the book of Psalms that are simply between one person and God the Father. But I agree that it is absolutely important as well as necessary to pray for the brethren, all the saints, and other people in general as well.

[@YeshuaSaves3]

We were created innocent but man has fallen and is corrupted. That is why God even helps man to cover himself with animal leather because of the shame.

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

Female is made in the image of God as much as male according to Genesis 1:26-27, which is what the AMPC says Paul was referring to. I will accept the word of God over Paul, much as I respect him. I can imagine as something of a diplomat, and not being Jesus, Paul could be mistaken to some degree.

[@colemorganti9349]

That’s a very slippery slope as now you’re saying what Paul wrote isn’t God-breathed

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

@@colemorganti9349 I appreciate that Cole, and am happy to highlight discrepency in the event it is my own so that I may learn. I pray that God grant me the eyes and ears to see and hear what I need. However, it would not seem contradictory for either myself to be wrong or for something Paul says to be incorrect or outdated or out of place. The entirety of Creation is inspired by God and yet we have fallen and there are stumbling stones covering the ground we walk upon. It is in God's remit to have even the sin shape itself to suit His higher purpose and I have been blessed to see this happen in front of my own eyes in my life. I don't believe Paul ever claimed to be perfect or his words to be unadulterable but I know God created mankind in His image "male and female He created them" makes a very specific point against which we must measure our own cultural perceptions around gender. I don't claim to have a definitive answer but perhaps having stated my concern I have asked a question that may be answered in good time.

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

@Nathanael Inman I have been shown by God Himself that the scriptures are His Word but on the other hand God has shown me (and other more learned Christians profess) that everything of the world has been in part corrupted by our sinful choices so should we not be wary of being too certain, and isn't God patient with regard to our puny opinions? It's not like I am attempting to lead a church or as if this lack of certainty and understanding on my part diminishes God's love for me or my love for God. Many Christian historians can offer reasonable-sounding explanations for why Paul would have been speaking in a certain context specific to issues in those churches at that time. Also, a man inspired by God is simply not on the same level as Jesus, and even Jesus, while being in the form of God did not consider being equal to God the Father as something to be grasped while in the flesh. I would have to say that we must be more careful not to allow dogmatism about uncertain details to undermine the important elements of faith that are prescribed to men and women alike. But I'm not decidedly opinionated on this. I just think Paul being a man who is openly fallible should be taken into consideration lest we who live now in the faith tie a millstone around our necks.

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

Maybe I was being particularly stubborn and He really loved me more than you do. I had more doubt than you can possibly offer me now. God bless you.

[@xFCB4EVERx]

@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 so basically you're saying: Your god isn't the god from scripture but from your own imagination. Good luck with that

[@Muzicboy3]

Why didn’t his wife cover her hair then?

[@dv4740]

Good question......she his opinion is sadly a minority even though this view of head covering (R c Sproul) was back in the last centuries the main view.

[@JulianArmy1]

She did in the church liturgy

[@WTG194]

Shucks we have bigger fish to fry than whether woman should wear head coverings in this day and age. Why do these guys come across like teachers of the Law?

[@LeoRegum]

Yours is not an honourable attitude. The question is if God requires it, and if He does, then it is no small matter to disobey Him.

[@charlesterrizzi8311]

Jon Abrahams I think it’s because the word of God addresses the matter very strongly. Is there a reason we should set it aside for other traditions?

[@eltonron1558]

These guys are all Sunday keepers. No need for reverence here.

[@charlesterrizzi8311]

Elton Ron You mean they gather together on the first day of the week??

[@eltonron1558]

@@charlesterrizzi8311 The first day of the week is Sunday. Jesus said to keep the Sabbath.

[@lorenarmstrong2007]

Matthew 12:2‭, ‬8 ESV "But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath." For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

[@eltonron1558]

@Nathanael Inman Ok, so it specifically says they came to break bread. Where does it say, "Oh, by the way, God's holy Sabbath, never changing, is now Sunday".?

[@megancrilley1878]

Before Jesus Christ was crucified the Sabbath was the last day of the week reflecting the creation story of God creating all things and on the last day he rested, making this day holy and for the sake of his creation humanity to rest from usual activities and devote themselves to the worship and glorifying the Lord. After the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ the last became first. The resurrection is now the Lords day and represents the new life. We are to come together as the church and worship amd fellowship together observing the sacraments etc. Bringing Glory to God the father, God the son and God the spirit.

[@ehudsdagger5619]

Chirp, chirp. Chirp, chirp...

[@JasonSchmidt-1979]

What does that mean? R u a BIRD?

[@myyellow-submarine5144]

Women aren't even saved the same way as men are, according to Paul.

[@elko1860]

Jay Ellis that’s bad hermeneutics

[@myyellow-submarine5144]

@@elko1860 how about women have no authority and are not even allowed to voice their opinions in church that they are to be quiet in the presence of men. Or that they might possibly be saved if they are good wives and mothers who serve their husbands well? Is that better?

[@myyellow-submarine5144]

@@elko1860 @Kyle Goron how about women have no authority and are not even allowed to voice their opinions in church that they are to be quiet in the presence of men. Or that they might possibly be saved if they are good wives and mothers who serve their husbands well? Is that better?

[@earnestlycontendingforthef5332]

The issue at Corinth was not whether long or short hair was an acceptable covering, but whether or not the head was covered or veiled. 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.