What’s Paul’s Issue with Head Coverings in Corinth? (1 Cor 11:4-5) - On site in Corinth

[@CCoburn3]

If you look at what Paul is saying in a lot of these passages, he is telling early Christians not to be a bunch of freaks. He was telling them to be as normal as they possibly could be because if they behaved oddly, others would not take them seriously. And that would get in the way of offering the Gospel to their fellow citizens.

[@gardenjoy5223]

Finally, a comment with sense in it.

[@sarahpowell9952]

Fair

[@EusebiuSopterean]

So let's behave like everybody in this society and not be ODD!! LET'S BEHAVE LIKE AN LGBTQ member so that it won't be offended and get the Gospel easier to swallow. Come one guys, get rid of these arguments like Paul is a supporter of uniformity and inclusion. Rather than "get out from among them, and be separate, and I'LL ACCEPT YOU" (paraphrasing )

[@gardenjoy5223]

@@EusebiuSopterean Yikes! How are you even able to think you are a Christian in the first place? You have no respect. Like to bring it to an absurd level and think you have a valid point? YIKES!

[@CCoburn3]

@@EusebiuSopterean Society was not as sick back then as it is today. And you miss the entire point anyway. Paul is talking about headgear, haircuts, clothes, and things like that. These are all OUTWARD appearances. The Gospel was a radical idea. It required people to believe that someone had died on a cross and was brought back to life. People thought that idea was insane. If someone dressed like a clown and behaving like a freak tried to tell you this story, you'd be absolutely convinced that he was crazy. Paul didn't want that. Paul wanted Christians to LIVE a Christian life. But living a Christian life did not (and does not) mean adopting an outlandish costume or acting like something from another planet. THAT'S what Paul is saying.

[@junicornplays980]

Head Coverings in Ancient Assyria by Professor Weingert is a good video that provides some context to women's head coverings in the Middle East. Long story short, for a woman covering your hair was a sign of respectability and class, slave women were not permitted to cover their hair. Thus Paul is saying dress like a classy lady (**edit 10/10/24: in the presence of heavenly beings*), no matter what your status is in society. *In the Apostolic churches (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East) it is believed that angels are present during the liturgy.

[@marvinc9994]

That's a VERY interesting point - and one to throw at badly-researched campus feminists who use this passage to portray Paul as some sort of 'proto-sexist'! Thanks for that.

[@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.

[@JQMurrell]

I don't know if it depends on the version of translation that you're reading or not.... But if you read to the very end of this particular chapter talking about covering of the head during prayer, it has this line, about that, "if you argue that this is not so, then this is not our way." And what I think this implies, at least this is the first thing that came to mind when I read it in the King James version... Was that he's stating throughout the whole thing to evaluate how we come to the Lord modestly. If a woman's head is culturally supposed to be covered because that is a standard of modesty that is accepted by all people, then she should definitely go before the Lord modestly in prayer. Because the Lord is Holy. However, if a particular culture does not have this custom and we question ourselves as to why we are going uncovered... And if it is not with the intention of being immodest.. And it is not a cultural standard of modesty, And therefore not offensive... Then we can consider that it is not our practice, if it is not considered a standard of modesty. So I think he's pointing out the cultural context and continuing to evaluate that we should question the heart of our intentions whenever we are going before the Lord. This same conversation is continued throughout Corinthians in various chapters. Talking about questioning the heart and whether or not we are doing A thing for God, or whether or not we are doing it to try to get some other reaction from people, just to rebel against society, just to irritate somebody, just to make a fashion statement... Whatever it is. And he takes this theme throughout other surrounding chapters of asking within your heart Why it is, that you are doing something. Just a thought...

[@robertmiller812]

@@JQMurrell I would have to say that you are right to question the version of translation that you're reading. Because if you read the KJV you will not get a lot of the things that many veil enthusiasts say is written since most use the most modern translation which is normally not the best. Here is a quick excerpt I got from a commentator named FA that has the logic down pat. "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." This statement is true and we can also throw in the word modesty because if we are going to argue about how this passage has something to do with that then we should be able to easily point to the exact verse that gives us this impression because if we really can't then we know this is more own desire to want it to mean rather than an exegesis of the passage.

[@infinitelink]

​​@@marvinc9994Corinth was already a feminist city with largely uncovered men, generally, by this point...

[@lampandlightpathways]

This was a big topic for me coming out of nearly 10 years of legalistic fundamentalism where head coverings and having long hair were mandatory for the women of our church. After many years of prayer about these verses God was gracious and showed me that this teaching on long hair and head coverings has no parallel under the OT type and shadow of Christian doctrine. Sound Christian doctrine is found in the OT blueprint such as sacrificial lamb, baptisms and out of servitude into a place of liberty and provision. This answer to these verses while utterly thrilling and liberating left me with a major headache. If they are not to be acted upon why are they there. After a couple of weeks of prayer ( so quick ) I had a verse coming to me 1 Cor 7 1..... now concerning the things whereof you wrote unto me !!!!!!! NOW....concerning the things YOU WROTE UNTO ME...... Paul covered these things because the corinthians had written to him about them. And then at the end of his discourse on their questions he finishes with his statement .....nevertheless we have no such customs neither do the churches of God. WOW!!!

[@araeshkigal]

YES! This is exactly the same answer as what I was given!

[@idafeuerfrau5631]

Augustus is wearing his priestly clothes! Men covered their head for the sacrifices!

[@sodaomgi7233]

Thanks for sharing!

[@williamdecourcy_]

But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. Paul is writing that they have no customs of contention in the church, as the believers are all of one mind. Women must wear head coverings in formal church gatherings.

[@mannaman]

Head coverings and the long hair was because of the angels. 1Cor 11:10. Also see Genesis 6.

[@Three721]

I quietly cover at church. We’ve been going to a really relaxed home church but so far no one has asked me about it. I hope they don’t but it’s personal and I think it means something to God. ❤

[@Eternal_Hope_Q]

I find such an intimacy with God when I cover in prayer. I didn't even know about the scripture to cover. It's personal between me and God, it feels better praying covered. I don't do it all the time though. We've recently moved house to a new country and I'm too shy to cover in the new church yet!

[@DebraCollins-fq4jo]

When I had my long hair cut short, the Lord impressed me to cover my head when I come to Him in intimate prayer. It's a thin veil, but I do feel it's in honor and respect of the Almighty. ❤

[@donsena2013]

It is for the same reason that Dt 22 : 5 teaches : "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God." That reason is that men and women should be easy to distinguish from one another, even from a distance, and that a woman should never be mistaken for a man, or vice-versa. The preference for long hair on girls/ladies/women is not narrowly centered in some local culture, but is internationally favored on the six inhabited continents (1 Cor 11 : 14-15).

[@kittycat8222]

Thank you! Social science adding validity to biblically actuate truths. The covering was the hair.

[@HB_IE52829]

​@@kittycat8222 If you look at the Greek original rather than a translation you see that different words are used for "cover" and the verse than clearly states that a woman needs to put something (a veil at that time) ONTO their head and that "hair" doesn't fulfil that demand by the word for "cover". It's the old question... did God really say it? And it's not Paul, who says it, it's God, because this epistle, like any book in the bible, is from God.

[@kittycat8222]

@@HB_IE52829 we are not born with a veil though so it’s a logical fallacy. I see what you’re saying though.

[@mombeaubob]

I believe this is against cross-dressing. Period. There were male prostitutes rampant in that culture.

[@AmericaisTheBabylon]

@@HB_IE52829 Correct. It is God's word not Paul's. Where there's smoke there's fire. Maybe in modern times the original meaning is perverted, but the ancients had the truth and left it. There are remnants of that truth still being observed today. Veils are still worn today by many ancient religions. They originally did this for a reason.

[@N0UTube4U]

For anyone interested in a REALLY deep dive, go to the Bible Project Classroom series on 1 Corinthians. These are seminary level classes recorded for anyone who wants to nerd out. Module 7 is the one that focuses on this scripture. It is truly a hot button topic and scholars throughout history have struggled with it. While it is wonderful for each of us to investigate on our own we must acknowledge that our interpretation is just that, and we are in good company if we are left scratching our heads.

[@Ela-cw7fi]

Thank you for your comment. I was looking for the Bible Project Classroom series and didn't know it until you posted this.

[@micheleneal1331]

I will never understand why people spend vast amounts of time debating this subject when in 1 Corinthians 11 verse 15 Paul clearly stated that a woman's HAIR is given to her as a covering! Women do NOT need an addition covering over their hair!

[@robertmiller812]

Amen and amen!

[@ronchappel4812]

I know exactly why doesnt solve the issue.Because that verse is confusing as well!

[@sarahwaters10sw]

They also don't read the whole thing because if you keep reading it says. BUT IF the woman has short hair it is to be covered when teaching.... Her long hair is indeed her head covering...... There were men and women in that upper room with YASHUAH when he came back along with the men and every single person in that room received the exact same job to do.... He says your Sons and DAUGHTERS will prophecy that's exactly what it says. When those Catholic and Orthodox sat down they took books out and added a lot of stuff that should not be there.... And took a lot out that should be.......

[@johnnygnash2253]

Where are the missing books?​@@sarahwaters10sw

[@sarahwaters10sw]

@@johnnygnash2253 the dead sea scrolls...... They are in the oldest bibles on earth including the KJ. Doing your own research does a person wonders...... Like the book of Enoch and such. They were all in those old bibles......

[@bonniemoerdyk9809]

Thanks so very much, I've been wrestling with this for years!! I'll be checking out your podcast too! 📖

[@thenewtestamentstory2744]

You’re most welcome 😄

[@sarahj3152]

I recommend you also check out the research done by "the Headcovering Movement"

[@barryblackwood6050]

Hair "falling down around" is ....the actual GREEK. Unrestrained. Men with long hair falling down around were effeminate homosexuals. "Queens"in that society. Greeks were known for young men accompanying older men as a sexual partner. Totally unacceptable for a believer in Messiah. Women with unrestrained hair were prophesying in the manner of the pagans. I think it was women called the Furies in that region that went to the caves with their hair loosened to have no sign of any authority or restraint to prophecy under the influence of drugs & the toxic vapours inside some caves. They used demonic ritual to attain spiritual insight. Again unacceptable to a beliver in Christ to be practising. Common knowledge then & not now. The Corinthians were syncretic in practice & Paul was rebuking that.

[@antonfig1865]

The Spartans wore their hair long and flowing. I think this is a bit of an over simplification.

[@rram421]

what you said makes perfect sense with the Greeks and with the culture. I was not happy with video homiletics.

[@jjsalas]

What always comes to mind when reading those verses is: what would Paul think of the fact that almost all representations of our Lord Jesus Christ depict him with long hair?

[@antonfig1865]

Remember the idea of what constitutes long hair is cultural, shoulder length would not have been considered long in either culture.

[@chelsealovely3755]

Thank you for this information!

[@kevinmitchell1697]

This was so very helpful. While I truly learned a lot it was so hard to watch while having the naked statue stab me in the eye the whole time. Framing a a film shoot is very key

[@josephwalsh7546]

Maybe you just need to grow up.

[@kevinmitchell1697]

​@@josephwalsh7546 Maybe I will grow up one of these days, but I bet you will not be able to watch it the same way again. 😉

[@josephwalsh7546]

@@kevinmitchell1697 As a 70 yr old retire physician and life long art fan, I'm pretty certain some cognitive therapy could help you lose the unfortunate and excessive prudishness.

[@kevinmitchell1697]

@@josephwalsh7546 As a 43 year old male who has 27 years in audio and video production I am very aware of the importance of framing a camera. As a man who believes in the goodness of God, it is my understanding that nudity even in art is not acceptable. When Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked it was a bad thing so Noah cursed Canaan. It is ironic that we are having an argument about nude art on a video about women covering their heads as a sign of respect for men. It is never acceptable to have nude art and yet the pagan christian church is full of nudity. Why is that? I would love to show this video to my 8 year old daughter or 9 year old son, but can't because a penis is bobbing around and you think it is art? You sir need your head checked.

[@kevinmitchell1697]

@@josephwalsh7546 As a 43 year old man with a 27 year background in audio and video production, I understand the importance of framing a camera. As a man who believes in the goodness of God, it is my understanding that nudity is wrong period and art is no acception. Noah was naked and Ham saw his nakedness. Noah cursed Canaan for Hams wrongful deed. I would not be able to show this video to my son or daughter because of the imagery that is behind the speakers shoulder. The irony is that we are arguing over nude art on a video about women showing respect to the men of the community. To say that nudity in art is somehow acceptable is perverted thinking and you want me to get my head examined? You Doctor need therapy.

[@juliecramer8459]

1 Corinthians 11:10 “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”

[@peggylivermore2613]

I agree. I am not sure why he brings in the Roman culture. There is an order that God taught from the beginning of creation. It has nothing to do with equality.

[@fuuzug777]

I think this explanation should be supplanted with delving into church history (Tertullian & John of Chrysostom) right to the reformers (Calvin & Zwingli). Because it seems that the interpretation that women should cover their hair from the 1st century to 1960s AD seems to be the norm until modern times.

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

I disagree because all you will get is someone else's interpretation. For example in Tertullian's time some people pointed out (for some odd reason) a non-biblical issue as to whether virgins needed to veil. Nowhere in the Bible will find that this was of a concern until over a hundred years AFTER the Bible was written. Long after the Bible was written did people start to stray from the scriptures and began forming their own beliefs and interpretation. This issue which Tertullian wrote about is evidence that people were already making up doctrines. You ought to read how unbiblically extreme this man was on this one topic alone. For example, Tertullian stated: “Arabia’s HEATHEN females will be your JUDGES, who cover not only the head, but the FACE also… And the modesty of heathen discipline, indeed, is more simple, and, so to say, more barbaric. To us the Lord has, even by revelations, measured the space for the veil to extend over. For a certain sister of ours was thus addressed by an angel, beating her neck, as if in applause: elegant neck, and deservedly bare! It is well for you to unveil yourself from the head right down to the LOINS, lest withal this FREEDOM OF YOUR NECK profit you not! And, of course, what you have said to one you have said to all. But HOW SEVERE A CHASTISEMENT WILL THEY LIKEWISE DESERVE, who, amid (the recital of) the Psalms, and at any mention of (the name of) God, continue uncovered… (On the Veiling of Virgins 17)” You can read how he takes this misinterpreted doctrine to extreme heights. So I wouldn’t be too quick to prop him up as a good source when he was in favor with the people as to covering up virgins which I should repeat is NOT biblical So not only was he an extremist he was in favor of creating more rules. This is most definitely should show how church history should in no way be entered into this matter. Just keep it within the guidelines of the Bible if one wants the facts to be clear.

[@infinitelink]

​@@FA-God-s-Words-MatterOr perhaps you don't understand one, audience, and hyberbole used for emphasis.😂 Paul suggested the party of circumcision ought to go all the way and eunuch themselves, after all...

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

@@infinitelink That doesn't change the fact that if one is going to delve into a doctrine one should stick to scripture rather that history. Perhaps you need to remember some scripture on this. 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. Note it doesn't say about adding additional items to be well equipped or be "perfect." Don't be afraid of using scripture to prove something and if you are realizing that you need other sources to further your beliefs then that should tell you something. Ask God why your mind must go elsewhere to find biblical truth.... he will answer you. God bless.

[@justinmayfield6579]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter it’s not adding to scripture. It’s seeking the wisdom of the most capable Bible expositors and theologians of all time, many of whom lived closer chronologically and culturally to the time the Scriptures were written. If you’re at odds with all of church history on your interpretation, it should be very concerning. You could be right and everyone else wrong, but your odds aren’t great. The above video is a good example of why ignoring church history is foolish. Everyone ends up with their own interpretation

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

@@justinmayfield6579 It is adding or at the very least it’s misinterpreting it. Man is fallible and many of these so-called scholars tend to be RC a group that has a high amount of false doctrines. It is irrelevant if some people lived closer chronologically and culturally to the time the Scriptures were written. Because during and after Jesus’s time we can easily read how many so-called believers were teaching false doctrines. If we were to really be fair-minded and compare what the Bible teaches to how so-called believers followed Christ over 100 years after the Bible was written we would find that there were major differences. People started to form churches or their own groups, religious names, religious positions and titles, an array of rules and regulations. Instead of sticking to scripture people became religious and made up their own ideas of how to follow God. For an immense amount of time these same people did not think it wise to try to get the word of God to believers people had to assume what they were being taught was true. It should be concerning that you are quick to believe what anybody wrote in the past. Do you not believe that all one needs is the Bible? You said that The above video is a good example of why ignoring church history is foolish. But you never stated what you mean by that. What does church history mean for you? Because I have studied a lot on the subject and for the most part the RCC had a stronghold on this so-called “church history.” Since they have the longevity and the quantity are we to include them with all the false things they believe like purgatory, infant baptism, sale of indulgences, Mary worship or veneration, holy wars, popery, burning people at the stake, etc. Is that what you consider church history?? Church history is extremely irrelevant the WORD OF GOD should be your standard. People can argue about who said what and come up with their own interpretation but if we both agree to one book then we can together confirm or dismiss doctrines. Priorities for a true believer should be on the Scriptures not on the fallible words of men. Joshua 1:8, 2 Tim 3:16-17

[@chadwhitman1811]

Good article. As far as the admonition about women should cover their hair in church and men should remain uncovered ,the simplist explanation I've ever heard I'd that men should not dress like women and vice versa.Even today many cover hair in Middle East and the Mediterranean area.I don't think this injunction about hats applies to anything but church.

[@sodaomgi7233]

Many women wore head coverings to protect themselves from mosquitoes?! 🤔😅

[@chadwhitman1811]

@@sodaomgi7233 No, to show modesty.

[@robertmiller812]

​ @chadwhitman1811 I would like to read where in the Bible women wore a synthetic head covering for modesty.

[@chadwhitman1811]

@@robertmiller812 It was the custom in most Mediterranean countries before modern era .I dont think that it was specifically stated but was assumed that women would cover themselves .I am basing my response on the comments of others." Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States, a Christian denomination, says on its website: “Separation of sexes in the Church was a universal Christian custom until the Protestant Reformation ... the custom existed among many Protestant churches until the last century ... The early church and early church fathers viewed separation of sexes, during religious practices particularly, as an ‘appreciation of the natural order’ ... In early Christian writings, the separation of sexes was also seen as a safeguard against temptation.”

[@robertmiller812]

@@chadwhitman1811 That really doesn’t answer my question now does it? If I am asking to prove through scripture and yet you tell me a side story that one has to check to see if it were true or not. I am glad that you stated that you are basing your response to the comments of others, like certain man-made (meaning non biblical) denominations, the dependency of so-called church fathers make my point even stronger in that one has to dance around the Bible in order to defend the misinterpretation of veiling. It is practically impossible to defend this idea based on scripture alone one must rely on anything one can find. I believe that after the Bible was written people started making up their own beliefs and groups. Many of these so-called church fathers were of the RC faith which is full of false doctrines. So I steer clear from anything religious made by man. There were many customs that were followed simply because that is what was dictated by alleged Christian authorities centuries past that we do not follow today, now that we have the Word of God more accessible and can read for ourselves if anything that was preached in th past was true or false. It was the custom in most Mediterranean co The fact that you mentioned that early Christian writings (years after the Bible was finished) had a separation of sexes for whatever reason proves how they just made things up because that is not what we read in Acts at all.

[@stanburton3719]

"It's only for the Corinthians" - "But if a man disputes against these things, we have no such custom, neither does the church of God." (1 Corinthians 11:16) The principles Paul is teaching here apply to all churches. You try to twist it to apply to only the Corinthians. You quote Paul saying "nature" but then you swap in your own ideas about customs. "for the sake of the Angels" - You've left out most of Paul's words because you do not understand what Paul is saying.

[@JRRodriguez-nu7po]

Very well summarized. Don Quijote makes up fantasies to excuse Dulcinea.

[@donde2k]

Ok, but what about the naked statue behind him?

[@stanburton3719]

@@donde2k 😄 I have a comment on that which is better unspoken

[@garytorresani8846]

it did only apply to Corinth. Please take a history course in First cent Jewish and roman thought to get clarification about what the early christians believed. It is not what most Catholics and fundamentalists think.

[@stanburton3719]

@@garytorresani8846 Other than condescension, you've added nothing to this discussion. The author of this video says 1 Corinthians 11:16 is telling the Corinthians how stupid they are for not being like the Romans and for being "girly men", saying, "be like everybody else." Nothing in the verse or context supports any of that. "But if a man disputes against these things, we have no such custom, neither does the church of God." (1 Corinthians 11:16) When Paul says "these things" he is referring to the principles he has just taught. He says that "we", the apostles, have no other custom / practice / rule than what he has just taught, and neither does anyone in the church of God. No mention of Romans, girly men, etc.. Paul's role is not to tell those outside the church how they should live. His role is to build churches and bring converts into them. In that verse, Paul says "If a man". He doesn't say, "If you Corinthians" or "If you stupid Corinthians." He is speaking to all people in all time. The author of this video admits to being a little confused as to why Paul would bring up such a point, as the author understands it. The author is confused because he does not understand what Paul is saying.

[@Alwizcaliteach]

I don't wear a head covering but I've debated it for years. Seems pretty clear. Also EVERYONE (all women) EVERYWHERE wore head coverings until the ? mid? 1900's. I fear we may all have a cultural blindness...

[@rebeccamatteson9643]

A good study of history and Christianity as it exists outside the West shows that head covering for worship was (and still is, in many parts of the world) normative Christian practice.

[@biran44r]

@@rebeccamatteson9643 "christians" are mostly atheists nowadays. the "media" and the "satanic estallishment" want them to be lgbt and atheists.. head cover is a minor issue. save your kids!

[@imse81]

Well Mister, if men take off their hat in reverence when the go to church, I as a women put on my veil in reverence, because I cannot take off my hair. My hair is my husband’s glory, so I cover outside the house or practically all day because I pray during the day. Just like Jewish women have done for thousands of years. One must understand that Paul actually was a jew and a pharisee, and that may be the reason he talked about head covering to those in corinth, because they did not have this tradition. A man taking off his hat/head covering is humbled and a woman putting on veil is humbled. To not cover our glory is definitely not to humble ourselves. Just look at all the women that need to fix their hair, either in a saloon or at home, before they go to church. They do the opposite of humbling themselves. This is not meant as a judgment, but rather a thought for the women out there. Who do we glorify, God, or ourselves?

[@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.

[@imse81]

@@robertmiller812 can I ask, have you read what those who were Paul, Peter and John’s dispels and also wrote letters we still have today? I have read a lot of them. They all seem to believe that the covering should be a cloth veil, not the hair. But I do not in no way mean a piece of cloth has anything to do with salvation. Rather than the covering should reflect what is going on inside us. Studying the early christian writings are interesting to answer what they did believe and why. I don’t know what gender you are, but let’s say you are a man. Would you go to church a keep the hat on? If not, why? Is it not so that a man takes off his hat to humble himself? As a woman, I cover for the exact reason men take off their hat, I cannot take off my glory, so I cover it. We already know that jewish woman covered when they left their house and while praying in home with male relatives attending. Can it be therefore Paul was telling the gentile women believers in Corinth to cover while praying and prophesying? To cover the beautiful hair to humble themselves before the Lord? The Jewish believers did not need this information, they already knew. By the way, I don’t urge other women to cover without conviction. I am the only christian in my area that covers. And I live in a country where no christians have covered since the 70s. But I urge women to seek wisdom in the Word.

[@robertmiller812]

@@imse81 If these disciples you speak of are not written in the Bible then I have not read up on them in depth. I may have read something but not enough to really care as I am firm believer that if you want to get to the bottom of a matter one should go to the source like in this case the Bible. People have misinterpreted many doctrines that have been going on for years. It was only until people started to get the word of God in their hands have we been able to realize the false doctrines many churches have been following. In the past churches were the only source of interpretation and in many occasions have deterred people from reading it themselves. So as far as the Bible is concerned no one spoke about covering oneself with a cloth as a doctrine. You mentioned about letters well you should note that on two occasions when Paul and Peter wrote letters on how a woman should adorn herself they do not mention anything about a veil. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 1st Tim 2:9 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 1 Peter 3:3 If a covering were important then why would they care about the hair style unless everyone were able to see it? You would think that in these two completely separate letters of which the topic is on women and how they should ADORN themselves that they would mention the thing that you believe to be as important. But the FACT is that they don’t. This is pure Bible logic and we shouldn’t brush this aside. Studying the early Christian writings MIGHT BE interesting but it is NOT essential to answer DOCTRINE. If you truly respect the Word of God then you would give place to it’s teaching on how IT ALONE confirms 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. 1 Tim 3:16-17 There is no loophole on this matter, it is either Bible or nothing. We don’t use outside sources to confirm a doctrine and neither do we use traditions or customs or habits like you seem to be trying to convince me of when you asked “Would (I) go to church a keep the hat on (if I were a man)? Of which I am. So your source of belief in a doctrine is based also on the “custom” of some places in the world that take off their hat when they enter into a church? If you said this to an Atheist, he would have a field day with you, because it is not based on something solid. I don’t allow customs to dictate my beliefs so I have no problem entering into any place with a hat on unless it may offend someone then I would remove it. So if there was a church (and there are as you can see it in YT) where some men were wearing hats I wouldn’t think about taking it off since it is obviously not an issue. But my main motive is that I already know that Paul was referring to hair not hats or veils. The Bible never says that a woman is to cover her glory/hair. This idea of covering the glory is a misconstrued idea that even Paul and Peter never mentioned in the verses I provided. They cared about HOW the hair was arranged and for that to happen one would have to obviously SEE the hair, not hide it. How is it that you never noticed this? Paul was saying in 1 Cor 11 for women not to cut their hair short as it would mean her head is uncovered just like men are not to cover their heads with long hair. Paul never stated that women were to put on a veil in order to humble themselves before the Lord. As seemingly nice as that may sound we cannot just make things up in order to drive a misinterpreted doctrine further. By doing so you lead away from one to fully understand the actual meaning based on the words already given to us. I already mentioned in my previous comment how praying and prophesying were examples not conditions, therefore Paul was not implying something to be taken off or put on. Please reread it. Being the only one in your area that covers doesn’t imply that you are the only one doing what is right or that the others are doing wrong. If you are going to press the matter I suggest you find any “biblical” counterargument to my comment which is based on Bible otherwise you are basing your beliefs on customs or non-biblical writings or nice sounding stories that cannot be biblically substantiated.

[@imse81]

@@robertmiller812 I don’t say I am right. I tell why I do it, not that everyone else should do it. And I do absolutely not judge anyone for how and why they do something. But rather that there can actually be something in it. I find it interesting that people who knew Paul, Peter and John teach their fellow believers to veiling. But one thing one must keep in mind: there is NO commandment to do veiling. And if my husband had asked me not to veil, I would have followed that will, because he is my head. I am a very self sufficient woman and for me, the veil is my reminder who I am, and my place. Understanding the order of creation and headship is important. And Paul is not only talking about the women here, but also the men. And history has shown that men during the ages has misunderstood their place and become bossy and not leaders and forgot that they also were under headship of Christ. And today we have ended up with women wanting to be men(short hair and bossy) and men who don’t know how to be men anymore, so they end up being violent or just meek and don’t know how to be a leader, often it is the wife who is the head of the family. I have very, very many hours behind me by studying different Bible translations, early christian writings and studies by greek scholars on this topic. So I have not just read this passage in 1.cor 11 just a couple of times. We are to study the Word over and over again and meditate over it. So, my understanding of the first half of 1.cor 11 is about headship and what that means. Then one can discuss what that has to do with some women deciding to veil. I guess I am a modern feminist, I want to take back the right to actually be a woman and not a man in a female body. I have the privilege to have a husband as my head. A veil does not save you or make you more holy, if someone thinks so, I would say they have misunderstood the whole thing and been lead astray. But don’t judge someone who cover their head without knowing their Bible knowledge, a woman who cover can have a lot of understanding you don’t know about.

[@elviavasquez92]

Paul wouldn't force a Jewish tradition upon gentiles as we saw when he confronted Peter

[@KhanunFC]

Very nice explanation. This was a very weird passage for me and I kinda always attributed it to something within their culture but didn't know enough to be able to understand it. Thank you! 🙏🏻 God bless you

[@thenewtestamentstory2744]

You’re most welcome 😄

[@LonelyMountainBand]

Excellent use of visual aids, with historical and archaeological material that adds to the wider body of knowledge and insight that we have about these often divisive and misinterpreted verses. Imagine a world where people read the scriptures remembering to apply context - and even more amazing: if they looked to see the salutation at the beginning of the letters & books. I am particularly interested in verses of the scriptures where if you went to 10 different churches on a Sunday morning, you would get 15 different interpretations. (including their Sunday Schools, Nursery & the guy disagreeing with the pastor after service.) Some of my favs are "I have come only for the lost sheep of the House of Israel..." - "No man comes to the Son unless the Father draws him..." - "The Parable of the 10 Virgins", and probably my favorite for widely varying interpretations is "The Sheep & Goat Judgement" of Matthew 25. Happy Studying!

[@thenewtestamentstory2744]

Thank you so much! 😊

[@kiheidude]

So I have to have my PhD in ancient Roman and Greek culture to understand scripture? If Paul was correcting the Corinthian believers, did this letter not apply to believers in other places? I always was of the belief that I don’t need to be an expert in ancient culture to understand God’s word. Understanding the culture of the time can certainly deepen the meaning of a particular passage, but it will never change the plain meaning.

[@thenewtestamentstory2744]

Fair question and one I get a lot. My answer is always the same. No, one does not have to be an expert or even knowledgeable of the ancient world to understand scripture, which is a mark of its beauty. However, given that the NT is a collection of first century Greek documents written to a Roman world, having an understanding of this context is going to help unlock much more of its meaning. In terms of this passage, it was written to a specific group of Corinthians in approximately 54AD who were dealing with a very particular issue. And so having an understanding both of the city and the broader culture is obviously going to give deeper insight into what is happening. Naturally there is a broader application to the church, hence it was canonised, but to fully appreciate what’s happening you need some more historical perspective. You may disagree with this, that’s no problem.

[@kiheidude]

@@thenewtestamentstory2744I appreciate your response, however, you just proved my point. You are taking your knowledge of ancient history and changing the clear and plain meaning of the scripture. You are not “deepening” the meaning but are changing the meaning. If the head coverings were required in the Corinthian church, when did that requirement end? How would early church know it had ended? Does culture dictate what God’s word means? If so, are we adding to or taking away from God’s word? I’m not trying to be argumentative but these are legitimate questions. R.C. Sproul, a respected theologian, would disagree with your analysis. He rightfully states that God gives the reason for head coverings in the remainder of Chapter 11. Your position ignores this lengthy explanation. Further the comment that we don’t hear Paul speaking of head coverings in other letters is most likely due to the fact that head coverings by women were most likely the norm. He would not need to mention something they were already doing. This is born out by verse 16.

[@thenewtestamentstory2744]

I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue, but I think we’ll just need to agree to disagree on this one.

[@jesuscameintheflesh4725]

@@kiheidudewell said. The letter was also addressed to the church of Corinth and ALL THAT IN EVERYPLACE CALL ON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD.

[@jesuscameintheflesh4725]

@@thenewtestamentstory2744If you’re incorrect, and God wants women to wear head coverings today, then you’re teaching women to sin. I think God does want women to wear head coverings, and I do think you’re teaching women to sin. Only the modern feminist church has had this view btw.

[@Sk8ergurlie1]

I highly recommend the video "Christian Women Must Wear a Real Head Covering" on the channel Ante Nicene Christianity. It's long, but worth it. It has historical, cultural, and biblical proofs. To my knowledge, there is another video coming soon about it as well.

[@HB_IE52829]

There's one mistake with this explanation. It's not Paul who says it, but God, since this epistle is in the bible and the bible is the word of God. And it's the same old question: Did God really say it?

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

It is definitely God’s word and we should all take verse 15 seriously because too many want to continue in misinterpretations that have lasted for a long time by several groups

[@MariaSantos-xv3fi]

The ANSWER of Corinthians 11 is in verses 14 and 15. It has nothing to do with a piece of cloth covering your head, but our HAIR is OUR VEIL and IT IS NOT A PIECE OF CLOTH. Therefore, it means that men should not have long hair and women should have long hair (hair is already a woman's veil). Now the length, the measurement, is up to each person because for some women, hair that is shoulder length is already long, so, this length is according to taste and the health of the hair. In the Bible, the nations of the Middle East and Asia had this culture of wearing a headscarf, but not in all regions. For example: BEFORE THE LAW that came through Moses, we see (Genesis 38:14,15,16) in the story of Judah (son of Jacob), he had a daughter-in-law who was a widow of Judah's two sons; in order to deceive her father-in-law, she put a scarf on her head and covered her face, as was the custom of prostitutes in that region (this is how it is written in the Bible, go read it with your own eyes). So, this shows that the veil in some regions was used by women who wanted to hide their identity due to the life they lived. The veil (a piece of cloth) was something cultural of the ancient peoples of the Middle East, Asia too, but if we analyze the Bible we see that after the law that came through Moses there was more of this custom because the LAW IS DESERVED FAVOR, if you were born in the time of the law you had to DESERVE to receive God's blessings, so there were many requirements that you would have to fulfill. For this reason you see that, the heroes of the Bible, made BIG mistakes; there was not one who managed to fulfill all the requirements. BUT, then, why are they called heroes? They are called heroes of FAITH, because at a certain point they used Faith (they simply believed in God, they believed in His GRACE), so, this Faith JUSTIFIED them AND GAVE THEM VICTORY, they will be remembered for this FAITH in GRACE (UNDESERVED Favor). ONLY JESUS CHRIST MANAGED TO FULFILL THE ENTIRE LAW; the Lord Law was crucified on the cross, died on the cross and now THE LORD GRACE HAS RESURRECTED. Romans 7:4,5,6 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. 5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. 6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. The Bible must be read and interpreted with the eyes of GRACE. GRACE IS A PERSON AND NOT A DOCTRINE. GRACE IS CHRIST who came to free us from the slavery of sin and the Law (Romans 6:14 FOR SIN SHALL NOT HAVE DOMINION OVER YOU: BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT UNDER LAW, BUT UNDER GRACE.) Grace is freedom and GRACE IS NOT LIBERTINAGE.

[@deborahwheeler4302]

AMEN!

[@allthatjazz-7]

​@@MariaSantos-xv3fi So you are saying that the New Testament bible says that we SHOULD live in obedience to God, in the Spirit ! fulfilling the requirements that touch and mould our hearts, because the end result is the nature of our heart. So, if somebody does something slightly wrong, they can be forgiven. They can be readjusted gently, brought back to sowing and reaping correctly, in ways that benefit ourselves and also the hearts of others. To nit pick over each letter of law, and then to condemn people, is what Jesus said the law was doing, putting impossibly heavy burdens on people, and many more such things (he said)! But the Lord said, my yoke is easy, my burden is light!. How religion always tries to weigh people down with tremendous weights. While others rule over them, such self-appointed messiahs. But too, oh how modern day "christianity" absolves itself from responsibility, and speaks of freedom, but with bare recourse to Godliness. It dares not even speak out against sin! It doesn't warn; it has no fire. And sadly, still worships money in a rather ungodly middle class way! I think I will side with Jesus the Messiah. Those who believe in Jesus must walk as Jesus did. I agree with what he said. And sometimes we are propelled into kingdom living, we are partakers of grace. In the UK, we have the NHS. And as Labour says, they owe their own history to Methodism more than anything else. Perhaps that is true too.🤔 We still see God through a glass darkly.!

[@rebeccamatteson9643]

This seems so speculative. For 2000 years head covering by women during worship was a universal Christian practice. It still is commonly practiced in Eastern Europe, Asia, and Africa.

[@robertmiller812]

The Bible states that believers can be wrong for a long time (Acts 7:47-51). Today many doctrines have been reexamined to be false this one small belief is no different.

[@sarahj3152]

Yes, thank you. This has not been a debate historically in the church until the feminist movement.

[@Egh0127]

@@sarahj3152women not wearing head coverings didn't start after the feminist movement.

[@Egh0127]

So go ahead and wear a head covering then no one is stopping you.

[@robertmiller812]

@@sarahj3152 Which church? Are we supposed to guess or are you lumping all churches regardless of their heretical views like the RC church. What matters is what the Scriptures say not what churches created by man believed. One can find that certain churches believed many false things. Best to stick to scripture.

[@carolshumaker8348]

In Judaism everyone covered their heads to pray

[@sodaomgi7233]

Perhaps, but it was not a commandment from God for all people to cover their heads. Only the high priest was instructed to wear a head covering, yet many have taken this concept and applied it to themselves.

[@davidcloyd1296]

Vey good! I’d also heard that women weren’t allowed to speak in church in Ephesians because culture there worshiped “Diana” god and Paul didn’t want the women taking that same role

[@BarPaulus]

In ancient churches the women were sitting with their kids at the back of the church. I saw such a setup myself in a very old church. The women couldn't hear the priest and start talking to each other. A lot of noise which annoyed St Paul.

[@santtuhyytiainen]

People make that aspect the cult of Diana into a bigger thing that it was. Mike Winger has a great video on that topic.

[@davidcloyd1296]

Winger said the Mirror Bible is “satanic”. No more Winger for me!

[@PennySmart]

You omitted as most people who deal with this passage that Paul appeals to Creation.

[@robertmiller812]

True which is why it cannot be referring to a manufactured product but a natural covering like hair. Long hair in particular.

[@RichardBarrett-pe4zi]

@@robertmiller812 I think what Penny is getting at is the "headship" of the created order. A modicum of sound exegesis will make that clear in the passage.

[@robertmiller812]

@@RichardBarrett-pe4zi I agree that it has to do with headship but since verse 8 starts with "for" he is saying "because" and he is saying that as a way of saying that the creation order etc is a reason why a man should not be covered (in long hair) etc. So both are right.

[@Bengia-j7h]

Great Opening. Thank you for explaining so well and especially showing those statues of different kinds and their meanings.

[@thenewtestamentstory2744]

Thank you! I really appreciate the feedback 😄

[@JeffreyHand-o9t]

Strange that he totally ignores 1Corinthians 11:10- For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS. "

[@junicornplays980]

what does "because of the angels" mean? I have never heard of a good explanation of it

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

That is more of a side issue as it is too brief to be too focused on but I agree that he ignores a lot of things like why not n=mention the fact that according to verse 15 that the long hair is the covering.

[@ismedillard618]

I were wonderin that n'all

[@CrabTribe]

@@junicornplays980angels can mean messengers, like the “angels” in Revelation 2-3 being the elders of those churches. So maybe it’s just saying they should respect the authority of church gathering and their local elder (messenger appointed by the apostles to teach)

[@robertmiller812]

@@CrabTribe That is a lot of maybe's in two sentences. Or maybe he just meant angels.

[@mariondapsance7803]

How about the obscure passage "because of the angels". Any thought on that?

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

Too many people go into wild stories from these 4 words. If just keep it simple then it is more likely that as they are ministering spirits and see the workings of men then it is more like they are a witness to women who don't cover their heads with long hair.

[@robertmiller812]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Thank you

[@susanfromthemountains1754]

Apostle Paul commends them for keeping the ordinance. That's all I need to be convinced it's the perfect will of God. The Holy Word of God tells it just like we men and women need to understand it. There's nothing like Holiness. There's plenty of Christians who should get down to it before it's too late. Without Holiness no one will see the Lord. Let's uphold God's Word by not adding to it and not taking away from it and by doing it. Then we will not be ashamed at His appearing. PS, I call this generation the "I don't have to" generation. I was born in 1964 and my parents took me to their Lutheran church. ALL the ladies wore hats. They covered their heads. Every one of them. When I went to school all the girls wear dresses, including me. All women wore dresses for every day wear. For nearly 6,000 years women wore dresses, little girls wear dresses, women covered their heads, until this generation that says: "We don't have to". It actually shocks me that for thousands of years something was normal and carried out without question and understood perfectly and then this generation completely leaves it all. May God have mercy, it's not just clothing it's the heart. The hearts and minds and wills of this generation is unholy. They're teaching is unholy too. Their lives are unholy and the world-wide church is unholy as well. This is the "We don't have to" generation. It's not going unnoticed by God.

[@stalker7892]

A head covering does not make you holy for wearing it or unholy for not wearing it. Holiness is not about what we wear or eat. And Paul says not even circumcision makes you holy. Take a woman who would wear a head covering carousing in the streets and one who does not but gives alms to the poor and lives a sanctified life. Who is holier? We are saved by faith and made holy by the death and resurrection of Jesus. This issue with Paul was cultural just like Jewish dietary law and the Sabbath. Abraham was the prototype for salvation by faith. What law is laid down for Abraham to keep? Not even the Sabbath or the Law of Moses! Circumcision? That was a SYMBOL of the covenant God made with him. It was not the covenant itself. God looks on the inward!

[@susanfromthemountains1754]

@@stalker7892 I don't have an ear to what you said. I care a great deal about what I said. And it does match Scripture. (And I did mention Holiness is the whole body heart mind and will. You might be too quick on your guns, and you missed it. )

[@stalker7892]

@@susanfromthemountains1754 Jesus said holiness comes from within not outside the body. He pointed out how meticulous the Jews were in the physical cleanliness but inwardly were unacceptable. Nothing on the outside makes a person holy. God even told the O.T Israelites to circumcise their hearts. And that at an appointed time he would put their laws in their hearts. If you're a Christian he's already made you acceptable. Believe what you want but a headcover adds nothing to what god has already done. You miss the point.

[@susanfromthemountains1754]

@@stalker7892 I am following God's word for what please Him in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Period. He explained it in detail. If you can't understand it it's your heart that is hard. I'm following the Holy Word.

[@stalker7892]

@@susanfromthemountains1754 The Word says be ye holy as God is holy. Can you do that?

[@sodaomgi7233]

Given that head coverings have a rich history and common origins across cultures; they have primarily served as practical protection against the sun, excessive heat, dust, dirt, wind and insects. In arid desert regions, individuals wore multiple layers of clothing, including robust head coverings, as safeguards against the relentless heat. Historically, people utilized oils and a variety of natural ingredients not only to enhance their appearance but also to enhance the look of their hair. These head coverings were essential for keeping hair clean and protected from dirt and dust, helping to maintain a neat and tidy appearance. Additionally, women frequently adorned themselves with veils crafted from silk and other fine materials to enhance their beauty and appearance. Moreover, in ancient times, accessing clean water was a significant challenge, and regular hair washing was a far cry from the daily standard we often enjoy today. Such factors contributed to the widespread use of diverse head coverings. While these garments were functional, it is important to note that many were not originally intended for religious purposes. In fact, veiling as a religious practice has roots that are not biblical and is often viewed in contemporary contexts as a remnant of pagan traditions. So, to summarize, veiling or head covering primarily served practical reasons and was not necessarily a sign of Christianity or modesty, as many may think.

[@bernhardbauer5301]

Head covering has nothing to do with greek or roman culture. It has to do with Gods creation and Gods stewardship. Paul was given the task to order Gentile churches. He did it this way as described in 1COR.11.

[@BatMite19]

Further confusing things is the translation that some versions use. The NASB, NIV, NLT and the GNT say "no other custom" in 11:16; but the rest say "no such custom." These are polar opposites! The Greek literally says "no such custom." So why do some go with "no other custom?" I think they presume that after Paul spends 10 verses telling the Corinthians what to do about head coverings, he then says, "If you want to argue about this -- sorry. We have no other custom. Case closed." And I understand where they are coming from. But it seems to me that Paul is really saying this is a problem limited to Corinth. After 10 verses of telling them what to do, some may be tempted to argue because the other churches outside of Corinth aren't doing this. So Paul is saying, "If you want to argue with me about the other churches -- we don't have this custom. This is for you alone."

[@santtuhyytiainen]

On your last point, what Paul might be saying is that the churches of God do not have a custom or practice of people being contentious about instruction given by the apostles.

[@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.

[@santtuhyytiainen]

@robertmiller812 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 NIV But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. What Paul is saying here is that for a woman to pray or prophesy without covering her head is as big a disgrace as having her hair cut short or shaven. So it is clear that the people in Corinth already viewed short haired women as disgraceful. Paul also says: "For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off," which clearly shows Paul assumes the woman has long hair, and explains that for her to dishonour her head, her husband, by not covering her head when praing or prophesying is as disgraceful as if her hair was cut or shaved off, disgraceing her physical head.

[@robertmiller812]

@santtuhyytiainen There are a couple of problems here in that you are assuming that covered (which is an adverb) supposedly refers to a noun like a veil or something when Paul is meaning short hair. For example: But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (as it is not covered in long hair ergo it is short) dishonors her head-it is the same as having her head shaved. (Which makes sense because very short hair can look like a shaved head) For if a woman does not cover her head (with long hair), she might as well have her hair cut off (meaning completely bald); but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off (bald) or her head shaved (bald), then she should cover her head (with long hair). What Paul is saying here is that for a woman to pray or prophesy without long hair which he refers to as uncovered is a big disgrace. A woman without a hat or veil does not look like a woman shorn or shaved; to say that it does, makes no sense. But a short haired woman fits perfectly in that there would seem like a shaved head if it quite short. To say that the people in Corinth already viewed short haired women as disgraceful also doesn’t makes sense if Paul stated “…but IF it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven…” meaning that there is a condition that it is not certain. Lastly I agree that the woman has long hair but has chosen to cut it off short. Verse 6 is saying if a woman does not keep her hair long and has cut it short she might as well cut it all off bald. That is the proper understanding of this text. With no words that describe a hat or veil you have assumed this must be what Paul is referring to brushing aside the fact that Paul mentions hair like seven times throughout the passage. Hair is directly stated 3 times and shorn and shaven are written 4 times. If Paul is talking about cutting and shaving and that men should not have long hair and that women’s long hair is her covering then where are the words to counter this? Where are the nouns for hat or veil? Also consider the idea you’d be introducing that if a woman does not wear a hat or veil then the response to this would be to cut all her hair off?? Doesn’t that sound extreme? If you are going to claim that the passage refers to a veil (without any evidence) that one is allegedly to uphold then wouldn’t you also uphold the idea of cutting of women’s hair if they do not wear some kind of synthetic covering. But I suspect most people do not do that, which shows one’s proclivity and not a true desire to follow scripture completely

[@morganophelia5963]

so I had a brother in Christ explain this perfect so the power on her head i(a husband) is the man protecting her for the sake of the angels .. it's not really about a head covering MY HAIR IS MY COVERING .. *this is something I did learn from a brother* :) lol .. i am well learned but he is too so props to him

[@infinitelink]

Well he explained contrary the linguistics and not just all history until modern feminism, but all early evidence and explanations (including the anteNicenes). The passage is so clear that liberals and atheists of the NIV translators threatened to remove their endorsements if "hair" was suggested as a possibility merely in the margin, explaining (as Greek experts) not a wish to embarrass Christians to secular audiences but that it's simply not a possible reading of the Greek passsage. Pure dishonesty. The very man that organized to make the ESV happen now refuses to endorse because their translators KNOWINGLY put an impossible reading into the very text and publicly pretend it is translation: he is a pastor who originates in the liberal part of the PCA, so not some woman-hating bigot... But openly divulges the inside deets and deception of modern "pastors" who are really cowards in a milieu that hates even a thought of inequality, do constantly try to claim "the Bible was certainly mosread by all the historical figures who were legalists and..." A favorite feminist author of mine mocked one such pastor bluntly stating in reply to the attempts to make it seem compatible with current cultural values, "The Bible is HOPELESSLY patriarchal." Beware those who by counterimg all historic practice & evidence seem to make Scripture palatable to modern values...they are likely lying, though perhaps themselves deceived as well, and will drag you down too.

[@morganophelia5963]

@@infinitelink ive upset you this much lol really , why are you mad im not mad my aim is objectivity .. may Christ's grace be with you ........you know what they say the victors write history... or maybe you're not mad and im just misreading you lol

[@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.

[@morganophelia5963]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter yeah I commented just this right before I got this notification . well the big reason is , is for the sake of the Bene Ha Elohim (sons of God) the angels remember in genesis 6 they came and took wives that they chose so that is why it is a husband too (im not married) but myself personally i have long hair so my hair is my covering now i wear my hair up most of the time but my hair is still long so i personally do not wear a covering i thought about wear one while praying but then no my hair is my covering lol have a blessed day may Christ grace be with you

[@Himmiefan]

Do these verses go back to a teaching of Christ? If not, then they're just a situation Paul was dealing with at that time only, such as women dressing decently. Also, a properly dressed women has a sign of her own authority in Christ on her head.

[@BionAvastar3000]

1 Corinthians 11:16 "But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God." Makes sense!

[@sodaomgi7233]

Yes, veiling is a custom.

[@TheTrueSonOfFire]

Its about hair lengths for men vs women. It's not about cloth coverings 😂😂😂😂

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

Amen

[@sodaomgi7233]

True.

[@savoirfaire6181]

Most of Paul's letters were only written to a specific church such as Rome, Ephesus or Corinth. Does this mean that the commandments contained within those letters do not apply to modern people? If we interpret the New Testament as containing some merely "cultural" commandments then what prevents us from interpreting more of the commandments in the New Testament as cultural? What prevents us from interpreting most of the commandments in the NT as cultural? What prevents us from interpreting all of the commandments in the NT as cultural? To claim a commandment is cultural is to engage in consequentialist ethical interpretation of it and thus to enact that method of ethical inquiry as a valid means of interpreting the NT. We may thus speculate about what the underlying values are to commandments in the Bible through the lens of what seems reasonable to us. If we do this then what prevents us from importing the underlying values of the larger world culture we came from into this? Even Augustine as a former Montanist did this in his ethics and he has been one of the biggest influences upon Christian theology since Paul. Yet eventually one could explain anything in any way that suits one, could one not? If we don't want to do that then we could retreat into the Scriptures and use Scripture to interpret Scripture. In the Scripture we learn that love is the greatest commandment and that all other commandments exist underneath its banner. What prevents us thus from saying that all the other commandments are merely cultural interpretations of love, many of which are now out of date? Isn't it up to every age to interpret what love is in its cultural context? It seems in the year 2024, if Christianity taught women had to cover their heads it would not be considered a loving religion. Most would not consider such a commandment "loving" and such a religion would not be popular. Of course many would also not consider it loving to judge the sexual practices of others, to vote against granting new rights to cultural outsiders, to engage in wars, promote criminal death penalties, to interfere in people's reproductive decisions, etc.... What a given mass culture is going to consider loving, respectable, right, wrong, etc..., is clearly variable across time. So if the Bible's commandments also are variable across time then it seems God has no unchanging righteous nature but is rather just a mirror of the changing minds of human beings.

[@Makethemhearragtime]

Mary wore a veil. Good enough for me.

[@adalynnlanette6193]

This is a great statement! The topic of head coverings is often treated as a cultural topic that doesn’t apply to us now (even though Paul appeals to nature, hierarchy, and angels…all three reasons go beyond culture). Yet you’re right, if we applied the “it’s just cultural” thought process to the rest of the Bible, we end up simply doing whatever seems right in our own eyes. Thank you for stretching out this thought process to its logical conclusion.

[@garytorresani8846]

Many Women in Corinth wore their hair short. This was a wild seafaring town. Part of this wearing head coverings in public was a cultural thing as a custom at that time .not meant for today. There are many god loving women with short hair today. In our culture, it's a don't matter issue. Only extreme fundamentalists who take the Bible literally are into that admonition on women without any cultural or biblical context. Paul wrote letters addressing issues in those churches to which they wrote questions to him. we have his answers but don't know the questions he was addressing. Also remember, Paul wrote Romans while he was in wild Corinth, so I'm sure some of what he saw startled him. Read the first chapter of Romans in that light.

[@savoirfaire6181]

@@garytorresani8846 That's interesting. So if I can provide you for a cultural explanation for why the Bible doesn't mean what it says when it says anything else it says, does that mean I'm exempted from that commandment as well? I mean choose the commandment and there's probably an explanation someone's given about how it was merely cultural. And if you argue with me you'd be a fundamentalist, right? Because honestly, I just think this means we can make the Bible say anything we want it to say and not say anything we don't want it to say. The issues are many and you can always choose where you feel most comfortable based on your pre-conceived values which you share with your own private community, but then don't expect others to not do the same and come to different results. The Bible loses its capacity to be a standard for anything once you start treating it this way.

[@BornAgain223]

​@garytorresani8846 so you go onto do exactly the thing that the person argued against in his post, and imply they are an extreme fundamentalist by doing so. Except, if someone were to press you on all your beliefs, you would probably end up looking like an extreme fundamentalist by your own standards. Moral and cultural relativism leads to throwing out any objective standards whatsoever.

[@ladym7852]

Interesting. Dr. Heiser has another different take on this. But either way, both are quite interesting. I go with v. 16 at the end of the day…

[@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.

[@blueskies382]

Thanks great info the body of Christ should know. A lot of what the church fights about is in large because we should have a better understanding. Let's learn to prophesy and have house gatherings before wondering about head coverings.

[@IanTanLK]

Women shoulders the glory of man, whilst the men the glory of God. Both are well and good as designed by God. In the assembly of worshippers, we only need one glory taking the spotlight, which would explain why women has the authority to cover the glory of man on her head. The authority is yours and yours alone, sisters. How have we overlooked this?

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

Cover the glory??? 🤔 Where does it say that? The only thing that needed to be covered was the woman's HEAD. Verse 15 states clearly that the long hair was given to the woman as a covering. The long hair is a glory to the woman. But nothing about covering a glory.

[@IanTanLK]

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter "A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man." v7

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

@@IanTanLK If the scripture say a man is not to cover his head because he is the glory of God why are you adding the idea that a woman needs to be covered because she is the glory of man. What you are implying is not an exegesis of the verse. The fact is that God already provided the woman with a covering. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

[@lullaby218]

@@IanTanLK It doesn't say to cover their hair, it says to cover their head. It also says that women's long hair serves as a cover for their head.🙄 Why do people keep only reading one verse without reading the next one.

[@lullaby218]

It says long hair serves as a cover, not short hair, so men's short hair is not considered a cover.

[@Sorchia56]

I’m 53f and I wear a hat when going out and about. I also wear gloves. I was raised this way. I’ll remove my gloves to eat and take communion. I’ve removed my hat for some photos but it’s rare. My head is always covered for Mass, Adoration and Confession. As well as formal outings during the day. The rule is no hats after 6p.

[@thekingsdaughter4233]

After 6pm, _tiaras_ may be worn instead. 😉😁👍 Jokes aside, I agree with you. 😊

[@johanesas9596]

Great explanation, thank you

[@Kepha3]

The Augustus statue with the head covering was a religious image probably depicting him as the Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff, now a title of the Pope) which he fused with his office of Dictator and Imperator.

[@misha17422]

This is a very secular interpretation of the holy scriptures, aimed at stripping the spiritual component. Mentions nothing about prayer and family hierarchy embedded in the text.

[@isaiah5896]

I'm not sure if he was telling them to cover their head or not to cover. Their is a verse in that chapter that would need to be explained if he was telling them to cover or not cover.

[@rogerclyde2720]

Oh boy. Paul is speaking of hair, not a cloth covering.

[@RuggedCross1]

No, the context here is that if a woman shows her hair, its just as bad as it were chopped off so her hair should be covered

[@danetteperez3863]

This explanation makes the most historical sense .

[@sodaomgi7233]

The head covering has nothing to do with God, holiness or modesty. Historically, head coverings were primarily worn for practical reasons, providing protection from the sun, heat, dirt, dust, mosquitos etc. While some were used for aesthetic purposes, they weren't initially religious symbols. Veiling as a religious practice has roots that aren't biblical and is often seen as a remnant of pagan traditions.

[@davidappleton2905]

Very good enlightenment, thank you.

[@thenewtestamentstory2744]

You’re most welcome 😄

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

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

[@JohnYoder-vi1gj]

Amen I think people have been so indoctrinated that they can no longer discern between God's words and man's interpretation. No where will we be able to read the idea that women ought to wear a veil.

[@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus]

Is a woman allowed in church with short hair? Also does a woman only need long hair when praying and prophesying?

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

@@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus You are not making sense what what church are you referring to? Though I believe a woman should have long hair I am pretty sure that most churches would welcome any woman with short hair. As for praying and prophesying it is evident that women were able to pray and prophesy according to Paul the fact is that it would be a dishonor to do so. Any more questions?

[@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter I meant is a woman allowed to pray or prophecy with short hair?

[@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus]

@FA-God-s-Words-Matter yes , another question is why has the historical church from 1 corinthians 11 all the way till about the 1900's understood it this way and practiced it ?

[@Agent.99]

“Nature tells us that men have short hair…” because it is DANGEROUS for a man to have long hair in a battle or in nature, because it can be grabbed or tangled in something, leading to injury, subjugation, or death.

[@Saratogan]

Only in Corinth you say. Paul says "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." (verse 16 of the same chapter) Universal not merely local.

[@rebeccamatteson9643]

Christian practice throughout history seems to indicate so. Even today, it is common practice across denominations in parts of Eastern Europe, South Asia, and Africa. It was required among Roman Catholics until Vatican II.

[@jonathanoehlert5672]

In the context of the concerned passage, the hair is the head covering.

[@robertmiller812]

I agree I mean if the word hair is literally written 3 times and is being discussed indirectly 4 times as the words shorn and shaven pertain the to cutting and shaving of hair, then there is no other conclusion.

[@nathanogbu]

If this were the case then men would have to shave their hair before they pray becouse men have been told not to pray with there head covered. Early church writers are very clear on the issue.

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

⁠​⁠early church writers were wrong like praying for the dead, infant baptism and more. It is true that men are not to pray with their heads covered but it means not covered in long hair only women are to be covered in long hair. Uncovered does not mean no hair it means short hair.

[@thewaka]

Hair as the covering makes v5-6 nonsensical. “but every wife who prays or prophecies without hair dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. Or if a wife has no hair, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her have hair.”

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

@@thewaka It only seems nonsensical because of the way you chose to phrase it. Verse 5 is about a woman who has short hair (aka uncovered) and is seemingly like someone who is shaved. Uncovered in this case is a woman whose head is NOT COVERED with long hair not someone with "no hair" like you stated. By thinking that it is because she doesn’t have a hat on her head makes the logic more ridiculous because then comparison is that a woman WITHOUT an artificial covering regardless of having long hair is like a shaved woman. Don't you realize how ridiculous that sound? No veil = a shaved head. Preposterous. As for verse 6 the true idea is that a woman who cut her hair short (aka uncovered) should be shaved, which is a less drastic step from what you are interpreting that the lack of a hat results in cutting her long hair off. An even more ridiculous idea. I do not understand how an alleged Christian would think believers back then were practicing such an extreme response. A practice that I am sure that you do not follow. I am sure that you have cherry picked the part that appeals to you (which you think means a veil or hat) and have set aside the part about cutting the hair off. Or am I wrong? Is this something you also practice? Are you ready to cut a woman’s hair off if they do not wear a veil? I seriously doubt it. If you are honest with yourself then if you know that you do not practice this and yet claim to practice the other it proves you are a biased person.

[@Egh0127]

If we're supposed to wear a head covering then how come every single woman doesn't have any conviction from the Holy Spirit about it? You'd think if it was the TRUTH that at least some would get holy conviction about it but nobody does. I have never seen a Christian woman walking around with a head covering it's always a Muslim.

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

That is a good point. Are only those who wear a head covering the only ones who got some type if "conviction"? People need to recognize that Paul was merely referring to maintaining long hair (a covered head) and men short hair (and uncovered head).

[@hellegilbert3000]

Thank you for clarification on this topic.

[@BenDunn-j8i]

I say that Paul was alluding to the watchers

[@beckypetersen8554]

That is how I understood it. The fallen ones loved their long hair and beauty and were tempted.

[@robertmiller812]

@@beckypetersen8554 First of all Genesis 6 doesn’t use the word angels. If you think that the sons of God were angels then you are not considering Hebrews 1 which states: For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father “? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son" ? Meaning he never said that any of the angels were his sons so that kills that theory. As for the verses in Genesis 6 it states in the first verse that MEN began to multiply on the earth NOT hybrids (but MEN) and that the men had fair-looking daughters in verse two, of which were noticed by the sons of God. Given that believers or followers of God are also described as “sons” we can logically conclude that they are referring to those who chose to follow God. Another clue is that they took from these women, WIVES. So let’s paint a picture for a moment if they were angels. To take someone to wife must mean that they LIVED in a matrimonial household. If it were a one-night stand I think it would have said so. Therefore, are we to imagine that certain angels with the powers they possess married human women who then had to plow the field, tend the animals, raise the children, etc? Sounds very unlikely. Verse 3 already shows something of God’s displeasure limiting men’s time on earth and that his spirit would not always strive with man. And why so it could be because the sons of God should have chosen from their own rank or group as opposed to those who are the daughters of men. But that of course is debatable. Verse 4 is where we read about giants but if we read the rest of the passage it keeps describing these men as those who “BECAME mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Meaning it took time for them to become legends or mighty or renowned. Not due to being a tall hybrid of man and angels. Also, since we all know that we can use the words to describe someone as renowned or great by using the word “giant” (e.g. “he was a giant among men”) it would seem to fit perfectly with the rest of the words making this same description. God continues to reveal his displeasure in that MEN are wicked all the time in verse 5 and states he repented making man in verses 6 and 7. So it would seem God was unhappy with MEN when they were choosing their wives and after more men were born from this union. But if there were male angels taking women as wives then shouldn’t they and only the women be punished and not all men? Therefore, the logical conclusion is that they are referring to certain men regarded as the sons of God and that the word giants mean someone great or renown. Therefore we cannot tie Genesis 6 to this small phrase about angels. If angels are ministering spirits then why not assume the most obvious that they are constantly watching and one ought to act accordingly as they would testify against you. The angels being tempted theory goes against Jesus' own words that angels do not marry. that God never called an angel a son, and it makes it seem that God is unfair by being upset with all men when angels and women were the alleged parties. You should really review your thinking based on the scriptures I just handed you.

[@peggylivermore2613]

Awesome thought. I have believed that also.

[@Bringbackheadcovering]

That's not implying anything because that's exactly what it's saying.If a woman does not cover her head while she's praying or prophesying in church she is dishonoring god because she's showing her own glory and not God's glory. Now, it is very, very easy to become legalistic on this.I don't believe wearing a headcovering or lack of thereof is the sin at all. Considering it is a symbol of active obedience and not an ordinance for us it is not a sin when a woman decides not to wear a head covering. With that being said it is something that we are advised to do as women of God. And it is seen as shameful in the eyes of god unless you just believe paul is a liar when he setted himself. This. Doesn't clash with first fifteen at all, In fact, the way many women rate it is that you can still show your hair with a covering on top of your head.Because Paul doesn't tell us to cover our hair.He tells us to cover the top of our heads. So that's how that scripture can be interpreted the right way without a legalistic background. So verse fifteen can be applied to the scripture. You've just. Proven the scripture to be correct, praying or prophesying.Does insinuate that it's something that you can take off and put on. It's something that women don't have to wear all the time unless they feel lead to. See this is the problem that a lot of people refuse to acknowledge is that this bible was not written in the english language and it was written in greek. The term covering in greek is kalypto Which translates to veil Or to conceal something. So yes this scripture just says that it is a veil. See a big problem.A lot of people do not understand is that the english language can have one word.That means several different things. For instance, a covering can be a physical covering a spiritual covering. And many other things but in the greek language it means one thing.. A lot of people who disagree with the head covering movement often refuse to look at the greek translations and it makes no sense to me why people would ignore that when the bible was originally written in greek. In fact, the New Testament in the king James version was directly transliterated from the Greek language, meaning it was taken from the Greek language word by word.So if calypto means to be covered in the english language, it would make sense for it to mean Vale as well.When that is what it means in greek.. The scripture doesn't have to physically say that someone took the veil off.During worship and afterwards it's the same context that would be used when speaking about homosexuality. Christians are obligated to be against homosexuality because it is a sin correct? But the bible doesn't actually mention the word homosexuality , it mentions two men Sleeping in the same bed the Tells us that it's talking about homosexuality. In context in this scripture tells us that Someone is taking a covering off of their head. Exactly.He is telling us that we have always been naturally covered. But that Doesn't take away the head covering movement debate or argument. Because if we naturally cover then we should physically inspirishly , cover as well correct? Paul tells us several times that the only glory that should be showing is the glory of God. The bible also says that it doesn't even nature teach you That don't let me should cover. Saying that we've always Has some type of coverage Talking about our hair. Then he goes to talk about The glory of our hair and how our glory should not be shown. That is where the head covering movement comes into place, Because the only glory that is supposed to be shown is the head of man which is God. And if a woman has hair that is her glory.Then she should cover her glory.Because it in no way should triumph God's glory. Nature itself teaches a woman that she should cover. I agree the only verses that are Referring to physical head and a physical hair is verse.14 and 15, which is talking about the physical covering.But that doesn't take away the fact that the rest of the scripture is talking about a synthetic covering. A lot of women when covering show their hair because of verse fifteen. Which says that a woman who has long hair is a glory to her and her hair is a cover. But the rest of the scripture doesn't say we cover our hair says we cover our heads. That's why a lot of people get confused on the scripture because we're not actually supposed to cover our physical hair.That's why I show my hair.We're supposed to cover our physical heads.Not for modesty sake but for a symbol and a sign. Once again verse fourteen is yes talking about long hair. But we must understand that that is simply saying that we should cover our heads and show our hair out of our headcovthink.Because our hair is still a glory.

[@infinitelink]

Your extremely long winded explanation fails early in the talk of "head not hair" on considering the word is "katakalupto (wholle covered), and archaeologically we know that long veils that ensconced even very long hair are what was worn.

[@sodaomgi7233]

Someone must be blind not to see that long hair hanging down and covering the head IS ACTUALLY COVERING THE HEAD! FACT 💯%

[@sodaomgi7233]

Natural, nature, nature teaches us... Nature teaches us, if we have been given long hair then we should not cut it short - it wouldn't look natural. Similarly, if we have been given short, curly hair, we should embrace it, as it looks natural - it is a part of God's design. In conclusion, we should embrace and accept whatever type of hair God has given us.

[@btbb3726]

I’ve read papers that demonstrate that there were physiological/medical/beliefs and cultural understandings and practices in that context to the effect that a woman’s hair was part of her sexual/reproductive system. Paul’s language suggests that in that context a woman uncovering her hair in public was like exposing one’s genitals in public. Paul actually refers to a woman’s hair as the counterpart to a man’s “peribolaiou” or testicles (that was the Corinthian view in that context.) The temple prostitutes of the local temples would shave their heads because they did not want to be sexually fertile. This understanding is reinforced when Paul said, “…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”, that is, both treatments of the hair are saying something in that context which is not compatible with the morality that Paul is exhorting the church to embrace.

[@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.

[@btbb3726]

@@robertmiller812 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off 1 Corinthians 11:6a If ~”not cover” is to be understood as “shaved”, then what meaning does the above passage have?

[@robertmiller812]

@@btbb3726 I agree to all of your logic but I have an important question. At what point did I say that "not covered" is to be understood as shaved? Ok so let me clear not covered means not covered in long hair. I am a male and I am not covered in long hair does that mean my head is shaved? Being not covered (with long hair) means the opposite that we are talking about short hair. So if a woman presents herself with a manly hair cut which clearly shows her head not being covered in long hair then she ought to cut it ALL off. You should also take into account what you are implying with the alternative that if a woman doesn't present herself with a hat or veil that the response should be to cut off her long hair. Don't you find that more drastic and unrealistic that the brethren were really doing this? If that is the obvious alternative, are you saying you are in favor of this extreme response because of the lack of a hat or veil? If so, do you follow or practice that idea? And if you do could you tell me how this works for you. Do give women a warning...Do you or someone else take this person somewhere to cut the hair off....who normally does this...etc?

[@btbb3726]

@@robertmiller812 I may have misread your post. I’ll look back over it. 👍🏼

[@joannebeerens6206]

What a yarn...Headcoveringdenotes displaying AUTHORITY.. The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth, and is easily captured in understanding Authority under God and under the Authority of ones husband..Angels are also under Authority. It helps them to remember this when they observe our headcovering practice.. a veil of hair for women, and uncovered head for men..

[@NewsChannel-y4g]

Paul's issue?

[@revv45acp71]

Informative! Thanks.

[@sodaomgi7233]

Nothing wrong with hair being uncovered.

[@robertmiller812]

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.

[@jemimagleeson2269]

@robertmiller812 In your intense study I’m quite interested to know how you’ve concluded that the Textus Receptus is the most reliable Greek source when there are well known theological and grammatical inconsistencies (some of Erasmus’ translation work was taken from the Latin Vulgate, including even ‘correcting’ the Greek)? Honestly- using the TR as the foundation of your approach does undermine the position somewhat. Modern interpretations are much more reliable for many reasons 🙏🏻 just food for thought

[@cmwHisArtist]

It was very dangerous for a man to have long hair in battle.

[@deaushay]

Excellent teaching and historical facts!

[@thenewtestamentstory2744]

Thank you!

[@shivadizayin]

Also to note, the practice of covering the hair when worshipping their gods was done by pagans, both men and women. This practice along with others that were associated with pagan practices were not to be followed, so as to distinguish the believers from the pagans. Deuteronomy 12:29-32 Explains a lot about not following the ways of unbelievers in the way they worship. Men were mistaken for women when they covered their heads and prayed/worshipped. Deuteronomy 12:29-32 Deuteronomy 12:29-32 "When the LORD your God cuts off from before you the nations which you go to dispossess, and you displace them and dwell in their land, take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, "How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise." You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.

[@Linda-j6n]

I've read all these comments and yours is the best. It was simple and to the point and I will use it: ".......worshipping their gods was done by pagans, both men and women. ....pagan practices not to be followed....to distinguish believers from pagans." Thank you.

[@user-vm5ud4xw6n]

I would have loved to see the guy in real life with the shoulder length curly hair. Bet it was gorgeous. Wonder if I could borrow his locks? Being in a certain age group has not been kind to my hair!

[@neilkearns536]

This is eisegesis ... Reading into the text ...you have no interaction with Paul's argument particularly his explaining the meaning of Genesis 1 and 2.

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

I would have to agree with you there that this is an eisegesis instead of an exegesis. Also instead of pointing out any biblical verse to prove any of his points he immediately starts the conversation as though everything he is saying is true. He wants us to accept his explanation that the covering Paul is referring to has something to do with an artificial covering or veil. There is no discussion about how Paul was likely talking about LONG HAIR being the covering especially given the blatant fact in verse 15. He also claims that an artificial covering is to show modesty (where is that in the Bible). I guess we are supposed to accept that. Or that it means that they are married. I guess we supposed to accept that also. Then that praying and prophesying are things that he refers to as "something so public" Where is that written in the Bible? I can argue that prayer was and is supposed to be private according to Jesus. Yet it is public for him. I could go on but this is just really bad. Also by showing images or statues doesn't help prove anything biblically I think this is just his way of trying to convince the viewer that he is correct.

[@infinitelink]

​​@@FA-God-s-Words-MatterPaul is specifically speaking about an actual covering of cloth. Not hair. The NIV almost lost the recommendations of its all but one of its translators when one was able to connive a note into the margins suggesting the covering refers to hair (contrary the passage, Greek, etc.) Corinth was actually filled with women with long UNcovered hair, a culture that is much as modern culture. Writi ng from the time shows it was filled with a culture of ancient feminism so even with carvings on walls of women adorned in veils and scarves, women weren't shamed or low class without a cover. Paul not only roots the teaching in creation in this passage, but explains it as the custom as a tradition given the churches directly by the apostles... Nobody interpreted this as "hair" until the modern era and the churches without contact with or derivatiom from the west still cover their heads...as do Torah observing Jews, though with a bit of legalism to both observe and nullify the command (like wearing a wig instead, something that Jewish communities also mock as a false obedience). The Bible isn't congruous with contemporary values, feelings, or twisted neo-evangelical teachings out of Wheaton trying to make it palatable to liberal sentiments to recruit more secular women to run their programs and ministries as free labor...

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

@@infinitelink With all due respect Paul is NOT speaking about an actual covering of cloth. He is talking about hair specifically long hair that covers the head. You have not given any proof to back up your statement. Whereas the Bible clearly shows on many occasions that Paul had to have been and even outright states that hair is the covering. The NIV which is often referred to as the Non Inspired Version by all of those who have read the differences between it and say the KJV. You, out of nowhere, start to make unsubstantiated claims Corinth was “filled” with women with long uncovered hair, that they were dealing with feminism, etc. As interesting as that story may sound it is JUST a story. I have heard a plethora of ideas about Corith by a variety of people who make claims just like you regarding prostitutes, head shavings and more. Saying things that we cannot prove BIBLICALLY. You are trying to convince yourself that you are right mostly based on carvings and writings of men. I have seen a video on carvings of men wearing scarves or veils so your evidence about the same on women really doesn’t work. Paul referred to creationism to prove that this was something that was followed since then therefore it cannot be a man-made object like a veil. The custom or tradition that he was preaching was that women ought to keep their hair long and men’s short as it was from the beginning as God ordained. There was NO tradition of veiling “given to the church by the Apostles.” Your plurality on using more than ONE Apostle by saying "Apostles" shows that you are kind of sneaking in an idea that ALL of the Apostles pushed for veils when you should have kept it to one, meaning Paul. Catching this makes me realize that one has to be really on top of your comments. To say that “Nobody interpreted this as "hair" until the modern era” tells me also that you kind of think of yourself quite highly. Because you apparently are claiming you have the ability to know the minds of all men both past and present. You know that you do not have that ability, and someone somewhere must have though about hair especially given the fact that the Textus Receptus states the word hair 3 times and shorn and shaven 4 times for a total of 7 references to hair. So it isn’t impossible to understand that Paul was talking about hair. It is irrelevant if a “mainstream” denomination or church did not follow the fact that Paul was referring to hair or were following a misinterpretation, as many of them had been following many false doctrines that recently have been found to be false. A doctrine is not based on how long or how many people followed it. Doctrine is based on the Bible not on man’s misinterpretations that lasted for many years. The Bible gives a great example of how believers were wrong about a doctrine for centuries, yet God allowed them to continue in their false belief. I hope you can remember this. Hint: it is in the book of Acts.

[@donde2k]

@@FA-God-s-Words-MatterI was continually distracted by the handsome naked statue, ngl.

[@heidjemeidje7189]

​@@FA-God-s-Words-Matteryes, he is all into 'weak point shoud louder', instead of letting the Bible speak.

[@gershwinsmith3942]

Then why should we read Corinthians, how does that help us today ,

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

Reading Corinthians is good to know how to follow Christ and read about examples but I would not go along with the host's interpretation as he is not doing an exegesis of the scriptures. He adds his own thoughts into the topic with very little evidence.

[@NEChristo]

The better question is why did they think we needed to see the nuts and fruit on the statues 😅

[@ReadingGrandma7351]

The head coverings were not a commandment and Paul was clear he spoke with permission and not as being rules. Also, he was clear that this wasn’t necessary in order to be a Christian. If following a bunch of rules makes us righteous then God would have required the Gentiles to be circumcised.

[@mytwocents777]

1 Corinthians 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head *because of the angels* .

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

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

[@Bringbackheadcovering]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter And it is her physical covering not her spiritual covering. Verse 5 states we are to cover our HEADS not our hair! That's why it's called HEADCOVERING AND NOT HAIR COVERING! Because we don't cover our hair like muslims do. We cover our heads as a sign or symbol of headship and submission

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

@@Bringbackheadcovering I think you are finally coming around “it is her physical covering not her spiritual covering” YES. We are talking about a physical thing like hair specifically long hair. And YES “Verse 5 states we are to cover our HEADS not our hair!” Praise God you are opening her eyes. You are making my case that we are talking about covering the head which hair does and not about covering our hair which a veil does along with the head. So you admit to seeing the difference a woman’s head is to be covered completely which hair obviously does. So many people in the head covering community like to make mention of covering the hair when it doesn’t say that it says covering the head. For if it would have said hair INSTEAD of head then there would be a good argument on a head covering object because hair would be the thing that would needed to be covered but since it doesn’t say that then hair can easily fit the bill as it covers the head. Now the idea of symbolism you need to just put that aside as there is no wording mentioning this idea. It may sound nice but we need to keep this biblical and not theoretical because people will ask where does it say this and you won’t be able to respond to it at least not in the KJV.

[@Bringbackheadcovering]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter the symbolism comes from verse 3 in context. And yes it is talking about the head and not the hair! That's why physical covering and spiritual coverings are mentioned. Spiritual In verse 4 and 5 and physical in verse 15. Verse 15 is the ONLY verse that talks about the physical covering which calls the hair a woman's glory. Aside from the comparison paul uses in verses 4 and 5. Hes comparing the shame of lack of a spiritual covering to lack of the physical covering. But verse 3-5 state that a woman should cover her glory.. how are u not understanding this?

[@Bringbackheadcovering]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter lol I think in a weird way we are kind of agreeing. I believe women should have long hair that can be seen with a small covering on her head to represent her headhip authority if that makes sense! I IN NO WAY believe a woman should cover her entire head.

[@PrescottJohnson-gfh]

according to "handbook of life in ancient greece" by lesley adkins, the practice of "free" greek men having long hair was in honour of alexander the great. slaves, of course were shaved i believe... and i seem to remember something to the effect that this tradition he taught everywhere... yet we only find it written to the corinthians. makes me wonder what else we don't know.

[@christianfreedom-seeker934]

Paul NEVER COMMANDED HEAD COVERINGS!!! He was addressing a congregation that was trying to make it mandatory and Paul rightly said "we do not have this custom, nor do any of the churches in asia" (one of the few times he got anything right)

[@sodaomgi7233]

@@christianfreedom-seeker934 Thanks for sharing.

[@williamdecourcy_]

Read the verse more carefully Paul is writing that they have no custom of contention. As the believers need to be of one mind. Women need to cover their heads during formal church services.

[@RUAChristian]

Notice it is referred to by Paul as a custom or practice, not a command. 🤔

[@defendingthegospel721]

It goes deeper than that Paul was saying that a woman ought to cover her head with long hair. The context of the passage reveals about 7 times that hair is being referred to both directly and indirectly. (hair 3x and shorn and shaven 4x) if you read from the KJV. Therefore this was never about a hat or a veil. Nouns to prove an artificial head covering is not going to be found at all. Therefore those who claim head coverings as veils got all wrong. it was about long hair and short hair.

[@sodaomgi7233]

Head coverings for women are not a custom in churches, so the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians in response to their questions on this matter. Instead, God gave women long hair to be a covering.

[@cinaedmacseamas2978]

Men AND women covered their heads in the temple before the Divine Presence in the Holy of Holies. And in synagogue this custom was continued because the scrolls of scripture were brought in because scripture is that which is contained within the Ark of the Covenant, and thereby signifies the Divine Presence. The first Christians continued this Jewish practice because they were Jews, and the Holy Eucharist was even more the reality of the Divine Presence than the Holy of Holies in the temple. Some of the women of Corinth were acting like they were worshipping in the local temple of Diana, and defying common etiquette by removing their FABRIC head covering and speaking out of place like they were in a pagan temple. So in the beginning of Christianity men and women BOTH covered their heads because that was standard Jewish practice because virtually all Christians were Jewish, and men would REMOVE their head covering at THE CONSECRATION OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST because a man removed his head covering to show the common courtesy of acknowledging a superior.

[@robertmiller812]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/ppyVdGOuirmkqK8

[@jueneturner8331]

I have a totally unrelated question, but you said to ask. "If our Lord Jesus is the 'Passover Lamb', how is He the Atonement for all sins, since that would be the Day of Atonement Sacrifices (as described in Lev 16)? The Passover Lamb's blood protected the Israelite firstborn and preceded the exit from the House of Slavery / Bondage. Their firstborn sons (representing all the people) then belonged to YHWH, and each was redeemed after birth. I can see that the New Testament repeatedly records that our Lord's Blood redeemed us from the penalty of sin, and Hebrews says it replaced all sacrifices of animals, but how was this thinking arrived at?

[@JQMurrell]

@@jueneturner8331 there are several types of sacrifices that are described in the book of Exodus, And those first five books of the Old Testament written during Moses's life. The Passover Lamb was the first lamb that God commanded the Israelites to kill in their new walk with him, as part of a New covenant. Although the rest of what is entailed had not yet been revealed to them. But over time, there were several types of sacrifices to be given throughout the year and at various times, depending on what type of intervention needed to be given, in the case of different cases of sin. Near the end of the year, in the fall, there is also a day of national atonement for the Israelites, where the high priest goes before the Lord and makes a single sacrifice for all people. This is the one time of the year that the priest would enter into the holy of holies in the presence of the Lord God at the ark of the covenant, in order to intercede on behalf of people for all sins, and the Lord, God would accept the sacrifice and cleanse all people of their sins for that year. So there is this tradition of having a single sacrifice for all people for "all time" so to speak, that kind of blankets Anyone seeking forgiveness! With a single sacrifice! This is also called Yom Kippur, and in English it is called the "day of atonement", i.e. A festival that prophesies the day of the final judgment of the world! Because it is believed that this is the festival of the Lord upon which the world will receive final judgment at the final coming of Jesus Christ, and we will all find that final atonement for all the worlds throughout all time. What you will see then, is that the enacting of these festivals or rites and rituals so to speak, pertaining to the intercession of a priest to give a sacrifice, and ask for forgiveness of sins, and atone for sins, etc, is an active way of maintaining that covenant with the Lord, but also a prophetic way of acknowledging that this same thing, in its own way, continues to happen even today! Because it is something that happens in a broader sense, that, even today, we often go back before the Lord, confess our sins and ask for forgiveness! The only change is that the sacrifice was already made by an eternal high priest, Jesus Christ, who has already shed the blood so that we can maintain our covenant with him and not find eternal death, instead! Now, if you look at all of the Lords festivals, Jesus states that none of the law shall disappear until all things of the law have been fulfilled. However, not all things prophesied through the living of the commandments of the Lord, which were given to Moses, have been fulfilled. When we look at the festivals, particularly the spring festivals talked about in the scripture, you see that an event of great significance and prophetic fulfillment occurred on each of these main holy days chosen by the Lord and given to the Israelites as a festival at the time of Moses. And if we look at Moses, and the Passover in specific, the Passover was the first main festival or day of remembrance given to the Israelites by God, in order to begin a new walk with him. This festival in particular, asks us to begin a New covenant with him and a new way of life with him! I will explain below! Because I think that is why this had to start on the Passover, and not with Yom Kippur. Because Yom Kippur would be a day of atonement for all people over all time, looking forward to the end of times at the second coming of Christ. Once all things had been completed for all people! At the time of Moses, the very first lamb of sacrifice that God had commanded of them, was given on this first Passover. This was also mentioned as a start to the new year, when God set a new Divine calendar before them, in order to follow it in order to perceive his times and his seasons and his prophecies! But Moses himself is really a christ-like figure. And we should compare the life of Christ and also the figure of Moses to see that the Passover in and of itself speaks about the redemption of Christ and what it means to be a Christian! And I think that is another point of significance here in answer to your question. For example, here are the parallels of the Passover story that also tell the story about the redemption of Jesus Christ that he brings to the greater world! When the Hebrews are enslaved by Egypt, they are brought out of slavery or bondage to a better life promised to them. They used the blood of a perfect lamb to indicate their salvation from sure death, otherwise. The blood of the Lamb is painted on the doorpost/ the tree, significant of the tree upon which Christ was crucified and died and shed his blood for us, in order to save us from death! The Lord God gave Moses a staff, or let's say wood from a tree, in order to hold up over his head or plant it in the ground, much like the shape of a cross of jesus's crucifixion, in order to perform his miracles. And when Moses was commanded by God to hold the staff in the air overhead, he would have been holding it up as though his arms were tied upon the cross of a crucifix. Israelites also had to pass through water, in order to get to the promised land. But passing through water is significant in Hebrew culture as being cleansing. And so they enter into Waters of cleansing much like Christians enter into Waters of baptism. So in this way, Moses was passing them through the water in order to bring them into purification And cleansing just like baptism! And when we are cleansed in baptism, we are accepting a New covenant with God. And that is what the Israelites were doing here as well. They were accepting a new agreement that they would trust the Lord God to lead the way and bring them into a better way! A way of ultimate salvation! Likewise, Jesus walked on water, but Moses walked through it. Once they were "baptized" in the waters of the sea, The Israelites were able to come into the presence of the Lord, just like we received the Holy Spirit after we receive Christ and baptism! The Lord God also writes for them his commandments once they have received him and his presence, and this is what is done for us when we receive Christ as our savior, And that is that the Lord will write his commandments upon the tablet of our hearts so that we can follow him His ways, becoming sanctified for him! That is exactly what the entire path of wandering in the wilderness was to complete, was for the sanctification of a people. Who'd been chosen by God! And that is exactly what we are called to do, as we learn to live in discipleship of Christ, living in his ways, so that we might do his works here upon the world, as his representative and his priest, just like the Israelites started in the wilderness! That wilderness journey was a time that God even told them he was going to be testing them and trying them and teaching them how to take his instructions, so that they would understand how to live righteously in his presence! Kind of like a practice of being in heaven on Earth! But now that The Lord has provided Christ as the atoning sacrifice for all people everywhere, we can all choose to do this and join his covenant, just like the Israelites of the Old Testament, as they walked through the Passover and came to understand what it was to be one of the Lord God's Chosen people! Christians often say that life is like wandering in their wilderness as we are tried and become true to him! But I do think that the fulfillment of this story in Christ is the exact reason why he needed The Passover to be the start of that journey for us, and later in the fall, during the festival of atoning sacrifices, he will stand as the high priest in the temple of heaven for us, and in a final act Of judgment, ask the Lord God to forgive us as he intercedes for us on our behalf, before the judgment. Throne of God. But that time is not yet come, because there are still many things that shall happen between now and then, and many sheep for him to gather across the world! And until all of his flock are gathered, we cannot come to the day of final atonement, when that atonement is announced for everyone!

[@jueneturner8331]

@@JQMurrell Thank you for responding.

[@RisingRemnantOfEphraim]

Follow Christ, not Paul.

[@honorablevessel]

You must believe in a very weak and flawed god if you think he allowed his Bible to be so utterly corrupted. Paul wrote more then half of the New Testament.

[@wurzelfix]

We know that Paul developed many special things in his thoughts and worked especially with women, with female church leaders. Bear in mind that in the Middle Ages these monks often “had their own views” and made changes to the text. This has now been thoroughly confirmed by scientific research. You must find the rock in the surf with the help of Jesus Christus in yourself

[@rustneversleeps01]

1Cor 11.16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

[@robertmiller812]

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 1 Cor 11:15

[@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 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.

[@jesuscameintheflesh4725]

Just so everyone knows; he writes this same nonsense on every head covering KZbin video. It’s one big straw man attack on the headcovering position. He misrepresents the headcovering position’s argument and defense, and then makes arguments that appears like they’ve been defeated. In reality, the real arguments are just being avoided by him. Don’t fall for his lies sisters. He’s just a wolf in sheep clothing. We have so much evidence that a veil is being spoken of in 1 Corinthians 11. 1)early apostolic church fathers writings detailing a veil is being spoken of 2)All Greek scholars from the reformation. 3)scripture being interpreted by scripture(Haman removing his head covering in the Book of Esther is the same Greek phrase used in 1 Corinthians 11) 4). And many more Verse four of 1 Corinthians 11 uses the Greek words kata kephalēs (κατάIn κεφαλῆς) for "head covered", the same Greek words used in Esther 6:12[229] (Septuagint) where "because he [Haman] had been humiliated, he headed home, draping an external covering over his head" (additionally certain manuscripts of the Septuagint in Esther 6:12 use the Greek words κατακεκαλυμμένος κεφαλήν, which is the "perfect passive participle of the key verb used in 1 Corinthians 11:6 and 7 for both a man's and a woman's covering his or her head [κατακαλύπτω]")

[@jesuscameintheflesh4725]

Verse four of 1 Corinthians 11 uses the Greek words kata kephalēs (κατάIn κεφαλῆς) for "head covered", the same Greek words used in Esther 6:12[229] (Septuagint) where "because he [Haman] had been humiliated, he headed home, draping an external covering over his head" (additionally certain manuscripts of the Septuagint in Esther 6:12 use the Greek words κατακεκαλυμμένος κεφαλήν, which is the "perfect passive participle of the key verb used in 1 Corinthians 11:6 and 7 for both a man's and a woman's covering his or her head [κατακαλύπτω]")

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

@@jesuscameintheflesh4725 I disagree in using the Septuagint as it is not the original Hebrew. If you’re going to try to compare between similar or same words you should keep it within the New Testament. In any event I think we can understand Paul’s meaning without having to go so far away as to needing to read the Old Testament. The words Paul wrote are pretty clear. Here is an excerpt from a person well versed in this area regarding the words cover and covering…. “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” (perbolaiou). In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the examples 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.’ We cannot dismiss the facts. The word cover was used like a verb/adverb and NOT a noun. So, we can reject the idea of a specific thing like a cloth or fabric as those words are not there. The other facts are that hair is mentioned directly 3 times and indirectly with the words shorn and shaven 4 times. That is a total of 7 times whereas the word for a head covering like hat or veil is never used in 1 Corin. 11:1-16 in the KJ bible. So, CONTEXT is important. There is no mentioning of an item that one puts on or takes off. The proof of a veil is simply not there. Paul mentions that one of the reasons for women to be covered (in long hair) and men to be uncovered (meaning have short hair) is because man was made first and the woman second (meaning the order of human creation). So, if Paul is mentioning creation, then it is logical to assume that it was important back then but there was no manufacturing of veils or even the existence of churches (as some like to claim this is a church rule). So how could a hat or veil be an issue back then when it never existed. It had to have been something natural like long hair which is exactly as Paul points out in verse 15. The facts prove that Paul was referring to short and long hair here not a veil. And of course, there is still more evidence found withing the passage, but this should be enough to logically prove what Paul was really talking about instead of someone’s bad interpretation of a simple message.

[@jesuscameintheflesh4725]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter can’t you see how misleading your scholar is? He insist that, because it’s not a NOUN it’s not speaking of a physical head covering. This is a Strawman attack. He’s attacking the word when the argument is about the phrase. So manipulative. You once again show no outside proof of your claims. You insist on this guy’s explanation as being correct, even though he doesn’t back up his claims with any supporting evidence. The headcovering position is backed up by so much evidence for its support. 1)early Christian apostolic Fathers (disciples of the Disciples) writings literally telling us Paul’s speaking of veils. 2) the septugint which is the Greek translation of Hebrew the Apostles used. (Same phrase used when speaking of headcovering). 3) the actual passage which suggests a removable covering is being spoken of; since it’s to be done at certain times.(when praying a prophesying. 4) long hair being both a symbol of authority and her glory at the same time is nonsensical. (2 Greek words translated as covering indicating 2 different coverings being spoken of in the passage.) 5) At least 1950 plus years of the church interpreting this passage as a head covering compared to 60 recent years where a small minority don’t. (Your position is held by the minority of the minority…because it doesn’t hold water) 6)and so much more that I’m not going to continue repeat to a spiritually blind and deaf man (you).

[@jesuscameintheflesh4725]

If long hair is being commanded in the passage(which it’s not) how then do you: 1) tell a woman who is experiencing hair loss (40 percent of woman) that she’s not in line with scripture? 2) tell a woman with alopecia (a disease creating baldness) that she’s not obeying scripture? 3) tell an African woman with kinky hair that she’s out of line, because she doesn’t have a a long Afro hair style?

[@MichaelJMetz]

I appreciate the time that must have gone into putting this video together. Is it fair to say that in any culture the wife should present herself in modesty and the man should not exalt himself in the way he appears in public.

[@AnthonyGranda-yq6fo]

Since the passage doesn't mention modesty why would you incorporate that into this topic? Add to that the mentioning of the word wife? Then you say man instead of husband. It would appear a bit inconsistent or that you are not entirely sure whether this topic revolves around ONLY married couples or everyone. If the topic included those married it would be mentioning both husbands and wives but the problem is that the topic does not mention anything about married couples if you read from the King James bible. In fact i says "every man" and "every woman" at the start of verses 4 and 5. Plus it refers to creation about how women came from man and were made for man, therefore this is not about a marital relationship but the headship order man has over women, regardless if they are married or not.

[@markgreene1382]

My studies of ancient history have shown that in the early part of the Roman empire Roman men had long hair. When the long-haired barbarians began to appear on the outskirts of the Roman empire, the Roman sophisticated men did not want to look anything like these uncouth unsophisticated barbarians. So the Roman men begin to shorten their hair and even shorten and groom their beards. Then as time passed the uncouth long-haired barbarians were having an influence on the young Roman males. Those young men thought long hair was cool so to speak. Also I believe at that time the word nature as Paul used was actually the word custom. The custom of a true Roman male was to have short hair and not look like those uncouth unsophisticated heathen barbarians..

[@rupertfirstchurch9055]

I’d love insight into Corinthian Baptism for the dead.

[@thenewtestamentstory2744]

So would I 🙄

[@peggylivermore2613]

This answers your question.

[@rupertfirstchurch9055]

@@peggylivermore2613 ?

[@vitalykartavykh1003]

We do that in LDS Church

[@texpatrobertrice8309]

Actually Paul says that it was a shame for a woman to cut her hair. If she were to cut it she might as well be shaved. A woman's hair is her covering. It is her power over the angels. This is in reference to Gen 6 about the angels that sinned (Gen 6:2; Jude 6; 2 Peter 2:4). It is also just as shameful for men to have long hair as a woman. His hair is to be noticeably short. Not only is this gender distinction, but men are to appear before God uncovered.

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

Long hair is definitely a woman's covering. It would take a whole lot of bias not to see that. It is quite literally written in verse 15. It is clearly understood if the words hair are repeated 3 times along with the words shorn and shaven 4 times. The main reason some believe in veils is because they are literally brainwashed. FYI Gen 6 is not about angels it never uses the word.

[@texpatrobertrice8309]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Thhe term "Sons Of God" refers to angelic beings. Job 1:6, and Job 2:1 In Job the sons of God are the angelic host. In fact, never in the Old Testament was the term "sons of God" used to reference Old Testament "saints." In the OT humans were referenced as 'son of man," Bene ha Adam son of Adam.

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

@@texpatrobertrice8309 The most common mistake is to assume that Nephthalim (aka Giants) to mean tall men or that the “sons of God” means angels and that angels took wives and as a result produced some hybrid of men and angels that had caused tall men to be born aka giants. But the surrounding verses give a different conclusion to this idea. First of all Genesis 6 doesn’t use the word angels. If you think that the sons of God were angels then you are not considering Hebrews 1 which states: For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father " ? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son" ? This also means that the sons of God mentioned in Job could not possibly mean angels. It means those men who fully followed God that would present themselves before the Lord as one would understand in the Old Testament. God never said that any of the angels were his sons so that kills that theory. As for the verses in Genesis 6 it states in the first verse that MEN began to multiply on the earth NOT hybrids (but MEN) and that the men had fair-looking daughters in verse two, of which were noticed by the sons of God. Given that believers or followers of God are also described as “sons” we can logically conclude that they are referring to those who chose to follow God. Another clue is that they took from these women, WIVES. So let’s paint a picture for a moment if they were angels. To take someone to wife must mean that they LIVED in a matrimonial household. If it were a one-night stand I think it would have said so. Therefore, are we to imagine that certain angels with the powers they possess married human women who then had to plow the field, tend the animals, raise the children, etc? Sounds very unlikely. Verse 3 already shows something of God’s displeasure limiting men’s time on earth and that his spirit would not always strive with man. And why so it could be because the sons of God should have chosen from their own rank or group as opposed to those who are the daughters of men. But that of course is debatable. Verse 4 is where we read about giants but if we read the rest of the passage it keeps describing these men as those who “BECAME mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Meaning it took time for them to become legends or mighty or renowned. Not due to being a tall hybrid of man and angels. Also, since we all know that we can use the words to describe someone as renowned or great by using the word “giant” (e.g. “he was a giant among men”) it would seem to fit perfectly with the rest of the words making this same description. God continues to reveal his displeasure in that MEN are wicked all the time in verse 5 and states he repented making man in verses 6 and 7. It is clear that God was unhappy with MEN not with women not with angels but men because they chose their wives among the regular people and after that more men were born from this union. If there were male angels taking women as wives then shouldn’t they and only the women be punished and not all men? Therefore, the logical conclusion is that they are referring to certain men regarded as the sons of God and that the word giants mean someone great or renown.

[@janewhitely964]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matternope

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

@@janewhitely964 Yup

[@MsLovely319]

Finally an explanation that makes sense!

[@robertmiller812]

🤦‍♂

[@honorablevessel]

Wow, seldom have I seen a Biblical topic presented in such a childish manner. Not only does this video not address the meat of the verses, it's not even babies milk. You completely neglected to mention the MOST important aspect of these verses, which is where is says "because of the angels". Do you really think that God Almighty took the time to include these scriptures just to address a small group of people from a single place and time and correct them on they way they wear their hair? Ridiculous. Women: you need to have Christ as your covering in order to protect you from the seduction of the fallen angels that will return again, just as they did in the days before the flood of Noah.

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

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. I suppose if one were to just concentrate on a couple of words within the verses one could mistake Giants to mean tall men. Moreso when one tries to add the idea that the Sons of God to mean angels and that there was some hybrid of men and angels that had caused tall men to be born aka giants. But the surrounding verses give a different conclusion to this idea. Genesis 6 is talking about men not angels. It doesn’t say angels. You are accepting the false idea that angels can have relations with women. If you think that the sons of God were angels then you are not considering Hebrews 1 which states: For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father " ? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son" ? Meaning he never said that any of the angels were his sons so that kills your theory. As for the verses in Genesis 6 it states in the first verse that MEN began to multiply and that they had fair-looking daughters in verse two, of which were noticed by the sons of God. Given that believers or followers of God are also described as sons we can likely assume that they are referring to those who chose to follow God. Another clue is that they took from these women, WIVES. So let’s paint a picture for a moment if they were angels. To take someone to wife must mean that they LIVED in a matrimonial household. If it were a one-night stand I think it would have said so. Therefore, are we to imagine that certain angels with the powers they possess married human women who then had to plow the field, tend the animals, raise the children, etc? Sounds very unlikely. Verse 3 already shows something of God’s displeasure limiting their time on earth and that his spirit won’t always strive with man it could be because the sons of God should have chosen from their own rank or group as opposed to those who are the daughters of men. But that of course is debatable. Verse 4 is where we read about giants but if we read the rest of the verse it keeps describing these men as those who “BECAME mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Meaning it took time for them to become legends or mighty or renowned. Since we all know that we can use the words to describe someone as renowned or great by using the word “giant” (e.g. “he was a giant among men”) it would seem to fit perfectly with the rest of the words making this same description. God continues to reveal his displeasure in that men are wicked all the time in verse 5 and states he repented making man in verses 6 and 7. So it would seem God was unhappy with MEN when they were choosing their wives and after more men were born from this union. But if there were male angels taking women as wives then shouldn’t they and only the women be punished and not all men? Therefore the logical conclusion is that they are referring to certain men regarded as the sons of God and that the word giants can and does have another meaning. You really need to learn to read Bible IN CONTEXT.

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

You are being a bit ridiculous 4 words (because of the angels) is NOT the MEAT of the verses. LOLOLOL 🤣🤣🤣

[@honorablevessel]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter While I am unwilling to get into a long debate via the comment section, I will say that I have spent more than 30 years and 10,000 hours studying the Bible and I do not come to the same conclusion as you. I am willing to (and often do) change and update my understanding of scripture, but for you to accomplish that would require hours of face-t-face conversation, at the least.

[@honorablevessel]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter I do not base it on ONLY those four words... that would indeed be foolish.

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

@@honorablevessel I also have been studying this for years and have organized my findings in the form of a book to be published in the near future. The comments have been a goldmine as to reading what parts people tend to use to think Paul was referring to veils. I have found more often than not that people don’t like to prove their beliefs. They just go along with what they are taught. A few have been able to express their reasons but it is often a mixture of a verse sometimes from another book of the bible and outside sources like church history, or what this or that scholar said. It is almost never an exegesis of the passage. This strengthens my claim as they must go beyond the Bible to defend their interpretations. But I think it would be nice to discuss it in another format.

[@elijah5791]

The Christian tradition of female head coverings which Paul was advocating was from Judaism; he was not teaching them to follow the lead of Greco-Roman culture. Even today, Orthodox Jewish women STILL cover their hair as a form of modesty. Yes, Greco-Roman culture did have views about head coverings being modesty; however, it was not ubiquitous through the empire. It was, however, ubiquitous throughout all the early churches.

[@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.

[@grandaddyoe1434]

I understand that Jewish women wear wigs when out of their homes . . .

[@dahliaherrod4301]

So if this practice is born out of Judaism where is the verse that discusses it?

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

@@elijah5791 I agree with dehliaherrod please offer the verses in the Bible so one can confirm your claim.

[@AMain-kh5nq]

A women's hair is her covering. If a woman cuts her hair, which is her covering, she dishonors her husband, who is her head, and also Christ who is the Head of all. Christian women who really understand this revelation, do not wear scarves and wraps to cover their hair, they keep their hair long and uncut to honour their husbands and glorify God.

[@Nola-2000]

So it is only for short haired women to cover to distinguish with men ?

[@TheRealCantaraBella]

My hair is bushy afro. Long hair would be difficult to manage.

[@ambernichols8603]

I was raised to understand my hair is my covering. I've read this Bible chapter over and over, listened to podcasts and messages, and read a book or two. I've never cut my hair, and don't intend to, but I do feel confused when I read the scripture passage though because it seems to switch between actual veils and hair, and of course, the power on the head because of the angels. My guess, it's a tricky translation, and something's been lost. It does seem that there is significance though, and I guess what really convinces me is the fact that churches lacking outward holiness standards of dress, seem to universally lack the power of God, move of God in their services, and anointing in ministry. Once you've experience the presence of God in a one God Apostolic Pentecostal church service, everything else is a counterfeit. So, I'll keep searching to better understand...

[@sodaomgi7233]

Throughout the Bible, there is no command for either men or women to cover or not cover their heads in any circumstances, whether in church or in everyday life. Paul specifically refers to hair, noting that it is natural for women to have long hair and for men to have short hair.

[@ileanabracero.latorre8855]

1 Corinthians chapter 1 verse two he is addressing those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, call to be saints with all who in every place call in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, our Lord he’s not just talking to the church of Corinth

[@Guiscardo777]

what an ignorance : the covered head by the Toga (if male) or Palla if female of the Roman Statues refers to the 'Capite Velati' ( covered head ) mandatory in any RITUAL action of the Roman Religion. It was necessary to focus, to don't be distracted by signs or things in peripheral vision, and as a sign of modesty regarding THE GODS. It was used ALWAYS during prayers or offerings. So this has NOTHING to do, nothing with Christianism. In the Greek religion, instead, there were no covering of the head during the rituals.

[@cathcolwell2197]

I was hoping for more… The nature issue was not addressed

[@jperez7893]

when in rome, do as the romans do. historical context and perception is important in biblical exegesis. like sarah's tent in genesis. why not abrahams? because the tents are always owned by the women

[@moodberry]

Our theological mindset today seems to be that what was written to THEM and the advice to THEM is the SAME advice for us TODAY! It's just ignorant to think that way. If you do, you are going to get a lot of scripture wrong. Always remember audience relevance when studying the bible.

[@EmnM2010]

1 Corinthians is wild, because we're generally only familiar with verse chapter 13, which is only commonly read at weddings because LOVELOVELOVELOVELOVE. Your impression is that this epistle is a letter saying, "Great work, Corinth! You're a shining example of what love is supposed to be! Keep it up!" But when you actually sit and read the whole thing, you realize that Paul is furious the entire time and chapter 13 is more like, "I can't believe I have to explain this to grown-ass men and women, BUT HERE WE ARE" I have a strong suspicion from this letter that Paul might have been asexual because the mere mention of people having any sort of sex sems to send him into a conniption, but that's another story.

[@lw216316]

Wait - you left something out - what about the angels? Read the passage again and explain what this has to do with angels, please.

[@robertmiller812]

Though it is briefly stated many have taken this tiny passage to mean very elaborate stories. Much of which cannot be corroborated biblically. One should keep it simple and just take the basics of what it could likely mean. One can simplify this by noting that if angels are referred to as “ministering spirits” and can testify our actions then they can witness if they see the woman is following godly protocol by having their hair long or short.

[@honorablevessel]

@@robertmiller812 I see you have posted this response multiple times. Your words sound dangerous to me. It seems you are essentially saying "don't worry about that verse, just ignore it".

[@robertmiller812]

@@honorablevessel I think you might be a bit confused of what the word dangerous means. I have never stated that one should ignore any part of the Bible. Why would you make such a deliberate accusation? I was just adding to your request as to explain that small section of the verse. And one explanation is that angels are watching and can testify against us so we should keep the tradition. I can't believe that now we have to walk on eggshells when making a simple comment.

[@israelizzyyarrashamiaak766]

Some of this confusion comes simply from translations and every language not having a word that gives an exact translation so the closest word is used - then over time words changed meanings. The greek word is peribalaion which isn’t a veil - kaluma is the traditional word for veil. So therein lies some issues but then it comes down to is that covering hair. Most believed it was simply hair and thus the tradition of long hair on women being very traditional to downright law enforced. However we use a lace veil in white - it has little to do with covering hair as the hair is seen it is about arriving before God in the most modest way possible which includes the hair. Messy or unkept hair would be very disrespectful. The veil is mostly used as a way to contain the hair. For Syrian Christians of my beliefs we simply used it to look our best. Same as a bride does to get married - same concept. Look your best and be well groomed and hygienic etc . What I know is if anyone is wrong on this God doesn’t care. Pray with a veil or without , just talk to God.

[@defendingthegospel721]

Liked the comment. Especially how the word peribalaion isn’t veil and that kaluma is the traditional word used. I wish more people would come to grips with the fact that this passage has a lot more to do with hair than a veil. I also agree that whether one prays with or without a veil it is not going to condemn anyone.

[@israelizzyyarrashamiaak766]

@@defendingthegospel721 I had to learn Greek Hebrew and Arabic in Christian school. We couldn’t read a translated Bible so I didn’t know how many words had sketchy translations. Overall I don’t feel meaning actually changed but language did over time especially the last 40 years. Also cultural differences can alter understandings of words. I believe it’s about hair myself. But I do show respect and dress as every woman does because I know the reason behind it. And that reason isn’t salvation by any stretch. I think where people mostly got confused is usually over a single word with an iffy translation.

[@quawsi]

Very interesting

[@thenewtestamentstory2744]

Thanks. Glad you think so!

[@jonathanVA44]

this is what the devil looks like friends....hath God said? He appeals to Eve, saying, "God surely doesn't want you to deny yourself this fruit, to make you wise."

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

Can you be a tiny bit more clear I am not catching your idea. Though I do not agree with this video but I would like to know what part you find untrue to compare with my notes.

[@jonathanVA44]

@@FA-God-s-Words-Matter Paul's context is to speak of the headship of men, as a picture of the headship of Christ, and it is clear that he believed this is reflected in human nature. It's human nature for men to have short hair and women to have long. And that teaches us, he was saying, that women should have a head covering. For nature has already given them one. Therefore nature itself teaches that a woman should pray to God covered, to reflect her subjugation to the man, which represents the church's subjugation to Christ. It's like lifting hands in prayer. It's perfectly natural to do this. It's like homosexuality: Paul says it's against nature. What does he mean? He means against human nature. You know, a text without a context is a pretext, but a text put into a false context is also a pretext. In fact, you can end up saying the opposite of what the writer intends. If you appeal to the wrong context, as the man does in this video, you can end up making the text say anything. For example, "Moses was speaking about the pederasty when he forbade homosexuality" or "Moses was speaking about child sacrifice when he forbade murder." Both of these contexts are probably true, but Moses, in forbidding homosexuality and murder, was not speaking merely about the social context of his day, but was speaking in principle, of all murder, and all homosexuality. He was saying "it's never right." So the literary context was quite different to the social context, and to appeal to the social context, as if that is merely what is being said, is to appeal to a false context. It's to twist the word of God, just like a subtle serpent one once did in the Garden of Eden.

[@tybuzz67]

I think Paul had stated his reasons that is a reminder that angels can be tempted a reminder of fallen angels that women are very attractive especially to have long beautiful hair - both for angels and men and quite distracting especially during worship service And more importantly it's a tradition in Hebrew worship handed down and he knows no other worship tradition. I think we should heed and follow Paul's advice.

[@robertmiller812]

The most common mistake is to assume that Nephthalim (aka Giants) to mean tall men or that the “sons of God” means angels and that that angels took wives and as a result produced some hybrid of men and angels that had caused tall men to be born aka giants. But the surrounding verses give a different conclusion to this idea. First of all Genesis 6 doesn’t use the word angels. If you think that the sons of God were angels then you are not considering Hebrews 1 which states: For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father " ? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son" ? Meaning he never said that any of the angels were his sons so that kills that theory. As for the verses in Genesis 6 it states in the first verse that MEN began to multiply on the earth NOT hybrids (but MEN) and that the men had fair-looking daughters in verse two, of which were noticed by the sons of God. Given that believers or followers of God are also described as “sons” we can logically conclude that they are referring to those who chose to follow God. Another clue is that they took from these women, WIVES. So let’s paint a picture for a moment if they were angels. To take someone to wife must mean that they LIVED in a matrimonial household. If it were a one-night stand I think it would have said so. Therefore, are we to imagine that certain angels with the powers they possess married human women who then had to plow the field, tend the animals, raise the children, etc? Sounds very unlikely. Verse 3 already shows something of God’s displeasure limiting men’s time on earth and that his spirit would not always strive with man. And why so it could be because the sons of God should have chosen from their own rank or group as opposed to those who are the daughters of men. But that of course is debatable. Verse 4 is where we read about giants but if we read the rest of the passage it keeps describing these men as those who “BECAME mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” Meaning it took time for them to become legends or mighty or renowned. Not due to being a tall hybrid of man and angels. Also, since we all know that we can use the words to describe someone as renowned or great by using the word “giant” (e.g. “he was a giant among men”) it would seem to fit perfectly with the rest of the words making this same description. God continues to reveal his displeasure in that MEN are wicked all the time in verse 5 and states he repented making man in verses 6 and 7. So it would seem God was unhappy with MEN when they were choosing their wives and after more men were born from this union. But if there were male angels taking women as wives then shouldn’t they and only the women be punished and not all men? Therefore, the logical conclusion is that they are referring to certain men regarded as the sons of God and that the word giants mean someone great or renown.

[@PAUL-MUKISA]

Just to ponder: A number of times in the Scriptures, angelic beings are referred to as "men." Remember the three men that visited Abraham? That's something to think about.

[@robertmiller812]

Some have suggested that all three of the “men” who appeared to Abraham were angelic beings who in the form of men. However, Genesis 18:1 says that it was “the LORD” (Yahweh) who appeared to Abraham. It is the LORD who speaks in verses 13, 20, 26, and 33. Abraham stands “before the LORD” in verse 22. So, either one of the three “men” must have been God Almighty taking on the appearance of a man or all three since God is the Father Sion and the Holy Ghost. So although God or an angel can "appear" as men it doesn't make them men. Plus there is the best verse in Hebrews chapter 1 that states that God never identified an angel as a son.

[@tybuzz67]

There's a thesis that the Hebrew word "ben-elohi" wad used only twice in the old testament and it dies refer to angels. Enoch did write that angels took human women as wives or sex partners and birthed hybrid humans some were giants others were monstrosity either in appearance or strength. They eat human flesh and people were corrupted by these angels according to Enoch as the watchers (fallen angels) taught mankind how to make weapons and poisons , vain decors for body, make-up and other abhorrent evil practices that are contrary to righteous living most of all people were worshipping these fallen angels so YAH needs to eradicate them in order for mankind to start afresh through Noah and his family.

[@robertmiller812]

Anyone can make a thesis there are some that are both for an against the idea that the sons of God being angels. But the fact that God says in Hebrews 1 that he never called any of his angels, “son” should make you stop and consider that angels are not God’s sons. Also the fact that you also have to go OUTSIDE the scripture referring to the Book of Enoch tells us all that you cannot prove your idea using scripture alone. Not everyone reads the book of Enoch or any other fairy tale book. A book that states that Moses was born with white hair that light came out of his eyes and was able to speak as a baby. I suggest you put that book down, repent of ever using this book to promote a weird doctrine and start focusing on God’s holy words. Everything you wrote was awkward and weird that is because you have allowed yourself to believe that this book is legitimate when it is very corrupt, which is why it was never part of the books of the Bible.

[@wilsoncamargo7225]

A woman has to cover her head (with veil) just or only to pray or to prophecy, out of this situation, it's to her day by day, she doesn't need to cover head, it's because her hair is in place of the veil. Head covering, only to pray and prophecy.

[@gardenjoy5223]

1 Thessalonians 5: 17 "pray without ceasing"