My Head Covering Testimony ⎮ Christian Head Covering ⎮ Faith In Action

[@terrah3735]

I felt a conviction in 2018 to headcover and I covered for 3 years. Some people were curious some were critical & others were judgmental and mean. People in my church treated me like a outcast. I eventually left my church. My husband did not understand why I felt so convicted. He told me I was an embarrassment to him.

[@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 and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT use the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. Some will use the phrase “head covering” to claim that the passage refers to it when this phrase is not found in the verses within 1st Corinthians 11:1-16. One can find them separately but not together to mean a synthetic covering. Therefore, it would be disingenuous to say that it does. The passage includes the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions, then why would Paul say in verse 7… “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking/attractive) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. The answer of which should obviously be no. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look unattractive and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair while praying looks especially uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). The reason is that they are intermingling the word head in verse 3 that refers to authority with the other word “head” that is being used to refer to the literal head of the human body. One can easily dismiss their interpretation because it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband and that the context includes the idea of hair and the shaving and cutting thereof. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. Therefore there are no two coverings just one which Paul refers to as being covered which he means to be covered in long hair.

[@uplift56]

In most cases you were not led by God in marrying your husband. The Bible plainly tells you to cover your head in prayer. Now you see how the most of the church won’t be making the rapture, because they won’t sacrifice much for Jesus or the Father. The lord told my mom to cover her head when she is praying to him.

[@defendingthegospel721]

@@uplift56 "The lord told my mom..". unbelievable. 🤦‍♂ God help us to READ your word instead going on feelings.

[@shalomking0102]

That's very blessed to be covering the head during praying ❤

[@user-ei6xj6sz9j]

Yes, I agree. Yet being instructed to be in continuous prayer, would it not be better to wear one all the time? Or should we tell God to wait until you can find something to cover with?

[@philpopper8879]

Have you considered the reading that Paul is specifically writing to women acting and speaking in the church? Given the command to pray without ceasing, it would be impossible to faithfully take off your hat any moment of the day as your heart goes to the Lord continuously in prayer, so the command to cover is only relevant when in the gathering of the church body?

[@FaithInEveryDay]

I have considered that, however it’s not specific so I have to look at context and what was said before and after. Ultimately I still am working through this, but the text before is addressing behavior outside of the church and the one after is specifically addressing the church. It also is clearly bringing in the marriage covenant and headship, so it’s hard to just do that in the church. The pray without ceasing is why many Christian denominations wear the head covering 100% of the time, I have gone back and forth. I can bring a head covering when we are out of the need to pray arises but I can see the benefit to wearing it all the time for convenience.

[@shannonlp]

I have been studying this lately. My thoughts are this is why the Mennonite and Amish keep covered. I go to a Mennonite farm for milk. Next time I am there I want to talk to them about it.

[@JohnYoder-vi1gj]

Regarding your take on how head covering being long hair wouldn't make sense. I’ve had this issue come up many times in that if a woman’s hair is supposedly already cut short why would it state to cut it again? Therefore, this explanation does not make sense as it seems to be repetitious, but this is not being understood correctly. If not being covered (aka uncovered) means having short hair it does not mean that it cannot be shaved off. A man can have short hair and not be shaved off bald right? I think it is safe to say if someone were to declare that they were shaving or cutting off their hair, one is not thinking of a shorter haircut but that they are removing all of their hair. The words “shorn” (KJV) and “cut off” (in other versions) do not just mean to simply cut someone’s hair it means to shave OFF the hair. Note that the word “shorn” is repeated alongside the word “shaven” in the KJV almost as if to confirm and clarify that they are referring to cutting it all the way down to the scalp. This is confirmed in Acts when the word shorn is used when Paul makes a vow and the consensus is that he cut his hair bald and not an inch off the top right? Therefore, by mentioning these words side by side Paul would seem to be emphasizing the fact that women with short hair may as well be made bald. The idea would be as follows.... “For if the woman be not covered (in long hair), let her also be shorn (cut BALD): but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven (shaved BALD), let her be covered (in long hair).” Though I have heard some say that for some reason this doesn't make sense but what I don’t understand how the alternative should make an better sense. Because if this verse refers to a woman who doesn't wear a head covering like a hat or veil then it means they should cut off her hair. Do you think believers were following this extreme approach for not simply wearing a hat? How is this idea any better? And if one were to assume it refers to a veil then why not follow through and enforce it as it is allegedly is written? Then there is verse that says: “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.” Which only makes sense if a woman “uncovered” means a woman with short hair since it would be closer to someone shaven. But what is the alternative? that they are saying that a woman even with long flowing hair if she is without a veil she would be likened as someone shaved? That would be illogical. So in essence there is a misunderstanding of what covered and uncovered means as well as the words shorn or shaven. Once these words are understood in context and biblically then there is no doubt Paul was referring to long hair.

[@BingoNamo-gb8pz]

The woman covers her hair to cover the glory of man. If she doesn’t cover her hair then it’s as if her head were shaven (glory removed) because God will not share His glory with the glory of man. So a woman who never covers her head is taking the role of a man since man is the glory of God (that’s why his head remains uncovered). She is not supposed to be in the role of authority naturally so in order to properly take a role of authority while praying or prophesying she covers her head. This actually allows her to remain a woman instead of becoming a man (which she makes herself when she prays with her head uncovered, the same as being shaved- likening her to a man).

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

@@BingoNamo-gb8pz With all due respect this is just silly. Where is it written that a “woman covers her hair to cover the glory of man.” Is this a direct quote or does one have to assume things and create mental gymnastics to get to this idea? Though the one part you said is true in that if a woman doesn’t cover her hair then it’s as if her head were shaven but it doesn’t say “glory removed” neither does it say that “God will not share His glory with the glory of man.” This is a mashup partly scripture and interpretation because it doesn’t say anything about covering ANY glory. But Paul was not referring to a hat he was referring to the fact that a women who doesn’t cover her head with long hair is equivalent to being shaved. That is more realistic to the truth than the idea that a long haired woman without a veil is like a woman with a shaved head. This is illogical and disturbing. You should really think what you are saying because it doesn’t coincide with logic or facts.

[@BingoNamo-gb8pz]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter it would help if I could see my comment but I can’t so I’m not sure how you were able to read it unless it was removed in the last 20 hours. God glorifies us with His glory. I’m not talking about being glorified with His glory. I’m talking about the glory of man apart from God. Like those who glory in the flesh. But we put no confidence in the flesh. We glory in Christ & our confidence is in Christ. If the woman’s hair was her covering then this whole passage is pointless & all Paul would have to say is “women do not shave your head.”

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

@@BingoNamo-gb8pz You stated that if “the woman’s hair was her covering then this whole passage is pointless & all Paul would have to say is “women do not shave your head.” I will try my best to put is as simply as possible. Ok…verse 15 clearly states that long hair is a covering. If then being covered means to have long hair, then to be uncovered means to have short hair. This coincides with men needing to be uncovered (have short hair). The point of the passage was that there were men who were covered in long hair and women who were not (meaning their hair was short) and doing godly or holy things LIKE praying or prophesying while looking way off in their hair. So Paul was trying to direct people back to following the tradition of long hair on women and short on men. So, if being uncovered means to have short hair then verse 6 makes much more sense for example: “For if the woman be not covered (in long hair because she cut it short), let her also be shorn (cut BALD): but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn (cut BALD) or shaven (shaved BALD), let her be covered (in long hair).” The alternative in the head covering community is to believe that if a woman does not cover her head with a veil that she should cut off all her hair. This is an extreme approach to a simple matter. And if we are to accept this idea then do these churches who claim this to be true put into practice the cutting part? I am almost sure no one will stand up and say yes we tell women that if they do not wear a veil they will be subject to cutting off their hair. Now you might be given to say no one is going to do that but then my point would be why not? This is then cherry picking just taking the part that one ASSUMES to be about a veil because it suits them but not follow the whole ALLEGED logic. So it isn’t about that women should not shave their head (especially since there is a part that says they can under a certain circumstance) but that they should not have short hair (aka be uncovered) and that men should not have long hair and that there are reasons why due to the headship order and creation order among other reasons which Paul explains.

[@defendingthegospel721]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Thank you for the clarification more people should know this.

[@PrettySunShines]

I am so conflicted with this. I felt convicted to head cover. But I am worried because not sure if my husband is on board, no one at my church does it. I am researching and researching and there are people that reassure you it is not necessary and there are others who tells you that it is… the bible doesn’t specify what kind of head covering right? Can I use a baseball cap as a head cover? I got one with Joshua 1:9. I did use a wide head band to church for the first time last Sabbath. No one said anything at all..

[@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 and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 7… “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.

[@robertmiller812]

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

[@user-iz8np3vv4i]

...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) For her hair is given to her as a covering. Does even nature itself not teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her as a covering. -NASB A woman's long hair is the 'covering'. If a fabric covering is actually required, then all references to hair are totally irrelevant to the subject. It only can make sense if the long hair of a woman is the 'covering'. She should be covered, with her long hair. To have short hair, like a man, means that she is basically bald. Therefore uncovered. __________________________________________ If a woman needs to touch and pick up something physical, before acceptable communication with deity can happen, that would make the fabric covering a talisman. Though the woman would not believe she is using a talisman. talisman (basic definition)- a piece of clothing (or other physical object) that is believed to have spiritual (or magical) properties. The object will align with your intention for its use. Every time a woman looks at a fabric head covering, her mind will recall the original intention of its use, until wearing it becomes a necessary ritual.

[@terrah3735]

Simple & easy answer to your question….Do what you feel the Holy Spirit is convicting you to do. Your walk with the Lord is unique so listen to the Holy Spirit not man.

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

​@terrah3735 That may seem like a simple and easy approach but God ALREADY gave us his word in order to correct or for the reproof of any doctrine. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim 3:16-17. Therefore, if the "conviction" one "feels" does not line up with God's holy word then guess what it isn't the HS convicting you.

[@lawtonsegler1923]

Don’t major on the minors. Focus on learning and passing along the gospel message. ❤

[@TheAlaskaMom]

If the head covering is supposed to represent submission to the woman’s husband and the husband isn’t on board with the idea of his wife wearing a head covering, why would a woman wear it? I would question the convictions of a woman who refuses to consider her husband’s thoughts on the subject.

[@karenbarth-vt7of]

Have you seen Pirates of the Caribbean, the quote about the pirate's code, "The code is more what you called a guideline than actual rules". Same with the Bible and head-covering.

[@Angie-fn8op]

Have you read Ephesians 3:9-10?

[@user-ei6xj6sz9j]

Having studied this specific topic in the Bible and by observing human behavior and also learning of God and other people who are definitely pointing to God, there are many different ways of discussing this. In the end the choice is yours and the responsibility of obeying God. Satan is at enmity against God. He tries to so twist God’s order around so people don’t follow God. 1 Corinthians 11 starts by talking about God’s order in church, husbands, and wives. By ladies covering their head with a cloth veiling, they are proclaiming that they fully stand on God’s order, that God is right. Everywhere you look there is chaos around who is right and who isn’t. God is the ONLY One Who is right; He alone has the ultimate truth and all the truth and only truth. What I believe is not all truth. What you believe is not all truth. God’s truth cannot and will not ever change. People who don’t have a good sense of God’s order and the commandment to cover your hair ( if you are a lady), will always find another way or reasoning to not do it. This is not only a conviction for the ladies to have. It’s very good that the husband or Godly responsible men to embrace this conviction and not be embarrassed or ashamed. I am concerned for you. There are other things that jumped out at me that further weakens and obliterates your whole testimony. Very sad, but God can redeem , if you repent. He doesn’t want that to happen for anyone. He desperately wants to give you good gifts, only if you are willing though. So what happened to your “ first” husband? Did he die? Or are you living in adultery because your first husband lives and you left and got yourself another? If your life is truly free from willful bondage, would God tell you to uncover your hair in public? Or did He essentially say that since you want to do things your own way, He will not interfere? We need God very much! We can’t afford to lose His help, just so we can do things the way we want to do it. Isn’t that rebellion? The thing that God cast Lucifer out of Heaven because of? This is serious. I don’t know you, but I can’t let you keep falling because I love you too much to not portray God’s heart in these matters. Yes, look up the real meaning of legalism. God bless you as you seek God and turn to His way and truth.

[@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 and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT use the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. Some will use the phrase “head covering” to claim that the passage refers to it when this phrase is not found in the verses within 1st Corinthians 11:1-16. One can find them separately but not together to mean a synthetic covering. Therefore, it would be disingenuous to say that it does. The passage includes the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions, then why would Paul say in verse 7… “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking/attractive) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. The answer of which should obviously be no. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look unattractive and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair while praying looks especially uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). The reason is that they are intermingling the word head in verse 3 that refers to authority with the other word “head” that is being used to refer to the literal head of the human body. One can easily dismiss their interpretation because it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband and that the context includes the idea of hair and the shaving and cutting thereof. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair. Therefore there are no two coverings just one which Paul refers to as being covered which he means to be covered in long hair.

[@defendingthegospel721]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Finally someone making sense. TY

[@heathersnyder8789]

I cover my head when I pray

[@robertmiller812]

My wife's head is covered with long hair hair and prays.

[@defendingthegospel721]

And some people don't since it is not a requirement.

[@derekbiggerstaff]

Yeah, wear head coverings. It's easier to avoid weirdos if they flag themselves up.

[@Three721]

❤❤❤

[@haiasinosdnah0813]

I’m sorry sister but legalism is not the definition you’ve provided. Legalism is when a prescriptive text in the Bible is commanded by God to obey but man adds extra stipulations to the commands of God and even goes as far as to question another’s faith if the other person does not adhere to the man added stipulations to God’s command. The Pharisees were legalistic in their practices and Jesus pointed out their legalistic traditions which was a stumbling block for others. I’ll provide an Old Testament example of a command that was added on by the Pharisees during Jesus’ day. Numbers‬ ‭15‬:‭37‬-‭40, “The Lord also spoke to Moses, saying, “Speak to the sons of Israel, and tell them that they shall make for themselves tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and that they shall put on the tassel of each corner a cord of blue. It shall be a tassel for you to look at and remember all the commandments of the Lord, so as to do them and not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, after which you played the harlot, so that you may remember to do all My commandments and be holy to your God.“ The Pharisees made them longer just to be easily recognized in public as a display of their piety. Matthew‬ ‭23‬:‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬ “But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments.“ ‭Connecting this to head coverings, calling people to obey the prescriptive text, which I believe head covering is a biblical command, is not being legalistic. One can start being legalistic if one would say that the ONLY way to cover your head is by veil and other coverings, i.e. hats and scarves, are not Christian like. This would be a great error and legalistic. Nevertheless, Christians should and must call everyone to obedience and repentance if there is a lack of obedience to God’s word/commands. This urging of obedience is good and not merely legalistic. Final note: God gave the two above commands to remind us of what He required/ requires of His obedient followers. Due to the fact that man is finite creatures and easily forget things, we need constant visual reminders to be obedient. In the case of the tassels, it pointed to God’s OT commandments to be obeyed. In the case of the head coverings, it is symbolic of Gods ordering within a house hold and is a symbol of being under an authority that God sanctioned and ordained. I would urge you to continue to stand on truth and remain obedient to God.

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

I would like to preface this topic by addressing the importance of using the correct version of the Bible. It can be argued that the confusion about women having to wear a veil or something similar could be attributed to the version one is referencing. For example, if we focus on the chapter where this doctrine is almost entirely derived from, 1st Corinthians 11, in the King James Version (KJV) you’ll see the word “cover” where some modern versions have translated it to “veil,” when it shouldn’t. Why? Mainly, because the definition of a “cover” is not exclusively interpreted as a veil, neither a hat nor a bonnet, etc. Some versions also use a variety of other words not found in this passage in the KJV like the words: “symbol,” “sign of authority,” “veiled,” “unveiled,” “public worship,” “wear,” “assembly” etc. Also, some versions use the words “wife” and “husband” whereas the KJV and other Bibles use the words “woman” and “man.” As a result of this some people believe the chapter refers only to married couples, but that is not how it is understood in the KJV. A misunderstanding in just a few words can throw off the entire meaning of this chapter. Therefore, I would like to use the King James Version in this matter, as I have done extensive research about bible versions and have found it to be the strongest and purest version of what the writers of the Bible were trying to convey. In addition, I will be mainly focusing on the woman’s side of this topic and that is because when it comes to head coverings the focus is usually on how women ought to wear something on their heads whereas men do not. But I will interject a quick discussion on the men’s side of this because there are false beliefs surrounding this topic for them as well. * The verse that pretty much started it all… If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying and for men to be uncovered, which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil” or “cloth” or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. If they were meant to be conditions then why would Paul say in verse 7… “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” If the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why assume Paul was saying that there were only TWO conditions in verse 4? Wouldn’t 7 override any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? But let’s continue. Verses 8 and 9 give us another understanding that Paul must have been referring to praying and prophesying as examples because he adds the order of creation into the mix. “For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man CREATED for the woman; but the woman for the man.” If Paul states that the creation order has something to do with the reason as to why women ought to cover (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (aka have short hair) then we can conclude that this doctrine must be bound in NATURE. That is to say that it must have taken place since the creation of Adam and Eve and BEFORE the manufacturing of veils or hats, and BEFORE the creation of churches, which is another reason why hair easily fits the mold. This is confirmed when reading verses 13 and 14 when Paul asks you to make an observational judgment that if it is comely (aka pleasant looking) for a woman to pray uncovered (in short hair) and that even NATURE teaches us that a man with long hair is shameful. Why would Paul ask you to think that something as unnatural as a woman without a hat would look off and then say something as natural as long hair would look off on a man? Paul was saying that not being covered in long hair especially while praying looks uncomely and in the same breath he continues and says men with long hair also looks naturally wrong. * So Is the Covering Long Hair or a Veil? ….. If we examine all the verses from verses 4 to 15 without bias, we should at least agree that at certain points the verses are referring to physical heads and hair. Now some have tried to argue that the covering is somehow Jesus or men (some erroneously add husband here as well). But since the passage in 1st Corinthians 11 already states that the man or Jesus are already referred to as the heads one should not mix things up and add that they are the covering especially when this word is referring to something else entirely, Plus it wouldn’t make sense if we were to replace the word covering, covered or uncovered with Jesus, man or husband. So, do the words “covered,” “cover,” “uncovered” and “covering” refer to long and/or short hair or some kind of foreign head covering? Some will even say all the above, but if we carefully examine verse 15 we would be getting a clearer picture of what was being referred to in the earlier verses when it mentions these words. “But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her FOR a covering." KJV So if the covering is long hair, then the words “covered” or “cover” (which are synonymous with “covering”) should be understood as long hair as well. If that’s true, then to be “uncovered” would mean “short hair.” If so, then we can get a better picture of verse 4 when it says that it is shameful or dishonorable for a man to pray or prophesy with his head “covered.” Note the similarity of verse 4 to verse 14 that’s because they are both referring to being covered in LONG hair.

[@haiasinosdnah0813]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter I appreciate your lengthy response but I will only address a few major points. I understand your sentiment for the Kings James translation which is a trustworthy translation but I would deem the NASB1995 translation also a very trustworthy translation that uses the current vernacular. It is a formal translation that uses a word for word translation of the original language that makes up the Bible. When studying the Koine New Testament Greek, the root word that is used for covering is κατακαλύπτω (English Transliteration: katakalyptō) which means to cover up; to veil or cover one's self. Thus the Greek refers to an external covering, equivalent to that of a veil, which is to be used. Now that we have the proper understanding of the definition, we can better follow the logic of 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, “But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head” (NASB1995). The section of the verse that states “TO HAVE HER HAIR CUT OFF…” is referring to that of short hair, and the statement “…OR HER HEAD SHAVED” is referring to her head being completely bald. Thus, your assertion that the uncovering warning in this passage is speaking about short hair is incorrect. Furthermore, for approximately 1,970 years the church interpreted this passage as a cloth type of head covering and many juggernauts in theology prior to the 1970s agreed with this interpretation. It wasn’t until 1968 when the feminist group National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) issued this statement: "Because the wearing of a head covering by women at religious services is a symbol of subjection with many churches, NOW recommends that all chapters undertake an effort to have all women participate in a ‘national unveiling’ by sending their head coverings to the task Force chairman. At the Spring meeting of the task Force of women and religion, these veils will be publicly burned to protest the second class status of women.” On Easter Sunday of 1969, what occurred is known as “The Easter Bonnet Rebellion” or “The Easter Bonnet Protest” when women began to burn their head coverings as a public display of rebellion against female subjection. Unfortunately the mainstream denominations acquiesced to this cultural shift and started to conclude that 1 Corinthians 11 was only cultural in nature. I would submit that themes of the passage such as the hierarchy as ordained by God in the creation account, the angelic witnesses, and the appeal to nature are all arguments for a timeless and universal command. As for any alleged bias, I used to hold to your original assertion about the hair being the covering until I conducted a thorough research on the matter starting with the biblical text.

[@godswarriors7543]

Some women like to wear a headband, cap, hat or even a hair tie that contains the Ten Commandments in order to obey Deut. 6:8-9. Because it says it is for the children and not just men or women. It normally doesn't cover all the hair as Paul describes. Those coverings have come to be known as the armour of God. There are eight pieces that many are seaching for. There is the head, both hands, the belt, breastplate, heart and feet. Exactly what are they, what do they contain? Jesus tells us that if we love Him to keep His words for they are spirit and they are life, Maybe that is the spirit we are to walk in. We just need more work and workers. God grafted Christians into Israel so the O.T. wasn't just given to the Jews but Christian as well. Those commands God gives to His children is for all who believes in Jesus. The O.T. is our school master just as the Prophets and N.T.. ALL scripture is inspired. If the head of woman is the man, then why isn't the man's head covered?

[@robertmiller812]

You seem to be everywhere trying to push the idea that men should also wear a head covering. But you seem to be very confused about this matter. For example, you use the idea that some women would wear “…a hair tie that contains the Ten Commandments in order to obey Deut. 6:8-9.” Um that was not meant to be taken literally otherwise would you also believe that people are to bind God’s words in their heart to mean that one should perform open heart surgery? No right? Also, you are mistaken to believe that Paul described covering all of the hair. Which verse are you taking this from or better yet what Bible version are you reading from? If Paul said anything he said cover the head NOT the hair. The covering Paul was referring to was long hair as so noted in 1 Cor 11:15. Then you somehow combine this with the “armor of God” but the armor of God is not a man made object it is a spiritual armor, so you cannot combine a head covering with that passage. I don’t understand why would you be mixing these things together with no evidence? Lastly you stated that If the head of woman is the man, then why isn't the man's head covered? But seem to forget that the head of the woman is man and that the head of the man is Christ. The Bible is quite explicit in this that it would be very hard or very biased to overlook it. I hope God helps you because you seem to be very lost in this. I will be praying.

[@Gingermarie745]

Rom 7:3;Mark 10:11-12

[@FaithInEveryDay]

I appreciate your comment. However there was abuse involved and a refusal to allow me to practice my faith. My church elders agreed not only that he was abandoning me as a nonbeliever (1 Cor 7) but that it was ok to remarry due to my circumstances. Remember to take the whole Bible, not just verses out of context of the situation. And the elders are there to make final decision. Life is not black and white, nor is the Bible.

[@FaithInEveryDay]

If you are interested in hearing how Yah has worked through and redeemed a painful situation feel free to watch this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/kILUnoRnqKt0oM0si=-s0sayn2nzwYH3pk

[@EM-mr7pm]

I see you gave up headcovering...

[@FaithInEveryDay]

I see you didn’t watch the video haha