Should A Woman Cover Her Head In Church? [Must Watch] | APostle Arome Osayi
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2022
- Kingdom Echos Media is a Christian Media Platform that's charged with responsibility of Transforming Lives Through The Gospel by publishing songs and teachings from prominent men/women of God.
We use readily available digital tools and platforms to advance the gospel of transformation. Below are some of the platforms we manage:
📌Website: www.kingdomechos.com
📌UA-cam: / @kingdomgistspot
📌Facebook Page: / kingdomechos
📌Facebook Group: groups/10117...
📌Telegram: t.me/kingdomechos
☎️: 08096763980
📧: Kingdomechs@gmail.com
📌Instagram: / kingdomechos
________________________________________
Thank you so much Daddies in the house, we're open to learn, unlearn and relearn anything that represents "thy kingdom come".
GOD CANNOT USE YOU MIGHTILY IF YOU KEEP DOING THIS - APOSTLE JOSHUA SELMAN
👇👇
• Video
Permit me to contribute to this debate. At the end of the Bible passage on covering of the head, Apostle Paul makes us to understand that the hair is already a covering for the head. This means that Apostle Paul was talking against women that did skin cut therby exposing the scalo of her her head (gorimapa). The community that Apostle Paul was addressing had a particular culture which was that a married woman should not barb the hair on her head to the point of exposing the scalp, and if she does, then, she must cover her head with a scarf or a veil. So,, the way to identify married women then was that they either had their head covered or had long hair. However, some of the married women felt that the unmarried ladies that had skin cut looked more attractive, and for that reason, some of them began to expose the scalp on their own heads by doing skin cut or scraping of their head. Dishonouring her head in this context means dishounoring her husband, in the sense that the woman is married and now under the autòrity of a man,,as her head, yet, she is acting like a single lady(just like when a married woman is caught been curdled by another man in public). It was a cultural thing. Today, there are highly annointed femal preachers. They dont cover their head with anything and they are vesels in God's hands. I am priviledged to have answers to a lot of questions because i am a Doctor of Theology. Shalom.
Thank you.
Thank you Sir
❤
Amplified Bible 1 Corinthians 11:6
If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, she should cover her head.
You are totally wrong Sir
This TRUTH by Apostle Arome evades many.
A headcloth on a woman does not make one holy or righteous.
Dig Deep !
Thank u. We Africans take bible out of context. We need to learn the bible in Hebrews
@@olabisidurojaiyeIts not wrong to put on head COVERING.
The head covering though does not mean one is in submission to her husband. If she doesn't submit she is out of alignment of God's will.
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.
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.
More grace man of God 🙏 thanks All glory to God 🙏 for you
I love you sir, God bless you for your iconic teachings.
Scripture is talking about the physical head of a man and a woman.
Please man of God,say the truth and set the captives free please, Heavenly father help us to over come this.Amen.
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.
I can really tell by the comment section that this thing became a stronghold in the Nation of Nigeria. One would wonder why this has to be explained but we see it. May the Lord have Mercy on us. 🙏🏼
God we bless u. Amen🙋
May God show you mercy arome osayi because you have done evil in the eyes of the lord
A note to All Christian women and men please let's study the Bible for our selves and ask GOD'SHoly spirit to help Us get the understanding we need.
Eternity shall tell
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.
Yes, man is not just a spirit, for a being to be called man, it need to be copulated with a soul and a body. You can't call raw rice jollof rice, it has to be copulated with pepper, salt, maggi, veg oil, e.t.c. So just a spirit being is not "man" what results to man is body, soul and spirit.
Please can we have the full teaching?
So if it's about their husbands what about single women that have not seen their husbands yet?
So if they pray or prophesy without finding the husband (which is the covering of head) God will not answer?
Let us stop with this compromise please
No dear. It would mean God is your covering with the assumption you are submitted to Christ. God would not leave you exposed.
When reading the KJV one will not find the words “wife” or “husband,” neither are there words that allude to marriage. Though one might make the argument that men and women are interchangeable for husbands and wives but there is a reason why the KJV translators chose not to translate it that way and that is because it wouldn’t make sense from the context of the passage. For example, verses 8 and 9 delve into the order of creation, which obviously includes everyone whether they are married or not. So if being covered stems from creation then it cannot be a manufactured veil it would have to be something natural like long hair.
It also wouldn’t make sense in some parts if you were to believe it refers to husbands and wives, because then it would seem like all the SINGLE men CAN wear a covering or all the SINGLE women can be WITHOUT a covering which would be the logical but erroneous conclusion. Hardcore veil promoters probably would not like that. This is likely the reason for this video. But the fact is that this passage has ZERO to do with anything marital. This passage clearly refers to ALL men and women regardless of their marital status. Read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman.” (KJV)
Therefore, it is not logical to assume that Paul is writing about husbands and wives.
The only outward display mentioned in this passage is for women to keep her hair long. Some people like to throw around the words husbands, wives or submission which completely changes the meaning of the passage, even though they are not found. I can only assume that they are following some odd interpretation of this passage instead of letting the Bible teach itself.
When you are referencing God your head must be covered all the women of the bible has their heads covered.
When the bible talked about head he's talking Jesus.
What if the woman is not yet married
spirit body and soul is man just as Father Son and Holy Spirit is God... saying man is not spirit is like saying Jesus is not God...man is spirit, man is soul and man is spirit....just as God is in 3 dimensions so is man also
Show us in scripture where that is written.
Sir,am surprised to hear this from u,pls go to God again.
husband has to obey and submit to his wife just as much as the wife to her husband
1 cor 11;16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
it was the tradition and custon and culture of those times. nothing else
in 1 pet 3 we read about women coming to the church meetings with plaited hair so women did not cover the hair.
thirdly, the Bible says that everything has to be gounded on at least TWO witnesses. there is only ONE place in the Bible where you read about the head covering and that is also not very clear since we read in the very passage that the hair of women is their covering.
in the new testament we dont follow the traditions of old. we follow Lord Yeshu who set us free from the external things. now the reality is Christ Himself. not the things on the outside
I don't understand, how do u then explain the advise that if the head would not be covered, it should be shaved. Do u then shave the husband and how??
Ask God for understanding
@@victoryezeribe2898 sir what I was indirectly saying is that that explanation is not completely valid
GOOD QUESTION.NOTICE THAT NOBODY IN THAT HALL WILL EVEN BEHAVE NOBLY TO PROSECUTE THIS TEACHING BECAUSE NIGERIA WALKS IN THE HIGH WAY OF THE INIQUITY OF FOLLOWING MEN MORE THAN THE MASTER.
@@mathew6vs33 Listen about covering and headship.
'RE READ SCRIPTURES.
Does a cloth on the head make one holy ???
Common sense
@@J_a_s_o_n well the scriptures is faith based not sense even though God in his grace makes it make sense to his children.
Now concerning the head cover, I believe Paul said that to limit distractions while praying, remember he said it to a particular church and I believe that it's based on a pending issue in that city.
Plus the church is not where u parade urself or beauty, a woman is to be of a quite spirit gentle and not adorning the body hence it will make sense for Paul to tell women to cover their heads while praying...
There is no need to explain what this scripture says. It's written in plain language. Women must cover their heads and men should not cover their heads when praying.
Adam and Eve allowed the snake to interpret the word of God which was given them in plain language - "don't eat this". The result of this interpretation was Adam and Eve doing the opposite of what God told them.
Much love to you bro
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.
Could it not be symbolic? The wife has covering of her husband which means she is covered whether she ties scarf or not. ..
The covering is not symbolic since Christ gave the authority of hierarchy.
God
Christ
Man
Woman
Woman can wear a physical head covering but not be under the headship of her husband. It will be useless.
* Why do some say these passages refer only to married people?
Now I’m sure some will reply saying the glory of the woman (aka the long hair) was only meant for the husband to see. This belief is not because of some scripture that details this since it does not exist. It is mainly due to bias and misunderstanding of the word “woman” to mean wife. The same can be said for the word “man” to falsely mean husband. Nowhere does it say that the woman’s glory was only meant for the husband to see, this idea is completely made up.
As noted earlier the words “husband,” “wife,” “marriage” or anything similar are not found in the King James Bible but veil promoters will claim that that is what they are referring to and will use their modern versions to prove that. This is a classic case of reading more into what the Scriptures are actually stating. But the way it is structured gives the strong impression that it is referring GENERALLY to ALL men and women NOT just married couples. Some people have stated that the words “man” and “woman” are interchangeable for “husband” and “wife” but if we read the context of the passages, we can see that this cannot be the case and the likely reasons why the translators thought best to translate it this way. For example, verses 8 and 9 delve into the order of creation, which obviously includes everyone whether they are married or not.
“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.”
Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women.
“EVERY man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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.”
If you try to replace the word woman with wife or man with husband, you will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts. You will also have to deal with the logical implications of this idea in that all single men CAN wear a covering, or all the single women can be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure many veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”
Some have mentioned in UA-cam comments about “submission” for example: “The clearest explanation, Paul’s is referring to a natural cover and a material covering to symbolize her submission to her husband.” Even though there is no mention of the word “submission” or “husband” or “symbol” in this passage (KJV) yet because of the misinterpretation of the word “man” or “woman” they have construed the idea that this passage refers to husbands and wives. But like I mentioned before it would not make sense.
Lastly, how can one navigate these passages correctly if one were to claim that the words they are reading do not mean what they state? How can one tell when they read the word "man" they really mean "a male person" and not “husband” and the same thing goes for the words: woman and wife? If one were to claim that they were referring to married couples, then how one can expect anyone to believe what they read? The logical thing to do is to understand what they mean by the entire context of the verses and in this case, they are referring to ALL men and women.
My pastor i use to love your teachings very well but with this i disagree with you
He's still the best. Ask God for understanding
I love it when people don't allow their love for their pastors to limit the extent to which they independently reflect over scriptures to decifer the truth.
The truth is there is a weight of importance attached to this issue of covering the head that Apostle stated that it should be done because of the angels. Let me attempt to profer a reason for this.
In a gathering of brethren, God's glory is to prevail above any other. Spiritually, no man encounters God without being slain to the ground by God's magnificent glory. So, in the physical, by dint of faith, we know that God is in our midst when we gather to fellowship. So, a man's head being the glory of God or Christ is left open. But that of the woman, being the glory of the man, must be covered so that only the glory of God will prevail.
Paul said this ordinance should be kept because of the angels because angels, who are Ministering spirits sent to minister to the saints, may be offended by the act of not covering the head by women. When then women don't cover their heads, it invariably creates something abominable in the spirit; which is that man is being glorified where only God should be glorified. This simply shows that the congregation is not subject wholly to God. And u know, the angels are jealous for God. Just imagine God sending an angel to minister to a church. On getting there, the angel finds that the church is not subject to God on account of women not covering their head. Remember when God was to send the angel of His presence to go with the Moses and the Israelites? God told Moses that they should not provoke the angel. Why? Angels are not emotional. There interest is to execute God's instructions to them. In carrying out that instruction they get offended when the beneficiaries of their heavenly mandates exhibit acts of rebellion towards God. And it is not their prerogative to show mercy, that is for God or if God commands them to. Moses, knowing this pleaded that God Himself should go with them. There so many examples that elustrate this fact in the bible. Remember the army lead by Joshua to overthrow Jericho. Someone then stole an accurst item, an act of rebellion to God's instruction. Hence, in their next battle, the angel that went with them to Jericho held back and they were defeated by a little city, Ai. So, this issue of exposing the head, for men, and noncovering, for women, is a physical till with a great spiritual significance.
Apostle Paul even pointed out that nature teaches so. That the fact that men naturally have short hair is an indication for their heads to be uncovered. And that the fact that women naturally have longer hair is an indication that their head should be covered while praying or professying.
@@numberone4326I have read your ling TEACHING.
There is one problem.
You are dwelling on PHYSICAL COVERING instead of SPIRITUAL COVERING.
Once a woman is not under the headship of her husband , or rather does not submit or is not in submission then she isb out of alignment with God's will.
So whether she covers her physical hair or has her head full of hair as a woman and she is out of alignment she is in ERROR / SIN !
May the LORD give us understanding
The word of God should be spiritually discern not judge by your emotions
1 Corinthians 2:14 King James Version (KJV)
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
A Godly woman should cover her head for sure. Dress modesty etc.
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.
Twisting the scriptures to match their self imposed doctrine.
Ask God for understanding
@kenneth 😂😂pls ask God for understanding o,,, if we check your life now! You lack orientation of the bible nd maybe you hv not even read the whole book and gain understanding
YOU have to teach out of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Christ is that authority, this passage is so simple, its speaking spiritual.
How can anyone listen to this?? Why wont anyone listen, it is not a custom, not cultural, just shows that people don't study from the sources rather they would study from the product only.
The head covered has zero to do with any object on anyone's head or about hair at all. The shaven part means you will be bare/exposed/not protected, the covering is Yeshua messiah, its talking about the fallen angels as it was in the days of Noah Jesus spoke of in the gospels, when the angels seduced the daughters of men, the (sons of God) that brought about the nephilim, naphi in the Hebrew (Genesis 6), to keep their heads covered because they're coming back and the ministering spirits are watching, so are the fallen angels who were with Satan during his overthrow.
Rev. 12 when Micheal kicks Satan out of heaven.
The man to not have long hair is speaking that it would be a perverted act, angel and man intimately Paul said no, they're coming back for the daughters of men as Jesus said as part of how it was in the days of Noah, and will be and people are listening down these rabbit holes thinking it had to do with 💇 HAIR!!!!! 🤯😔
Its in the Bible, Yeshua told us all things. No excuse but to start today.
I love you all, may God reveal and bless. Amen.
If man is not spirit, who is man sir
Man not spirit but have spirit
@@okesolasamuel4301 please who is man? is he a spirit,soul or body
@@profdaniel9418all the 3 sir .
1 thesolonians 5:23
@@profdaniel9418Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
@@profdaniel9418 Man is a spirit. He has a soul and he lives in a body.
I don't think he is correctly teaching this thing. May God have mercy on us. The congregation doesn't look satisfied either. Please Lord have mercy. It is wrong to claim that as Apostle he has the authority to correctly interpret coz there are other apostles who teach differently on this same subject. Don't dodge, just give it plain. Women should cover their heads when praying.
Yes ooo difference teaching
What does covering head in prayer do? Think about it. God is interested in our character than anything else.
Our hearts. Cloth over the head serves no purpose if she is out of order in her family under her husband
1 corinthian 11:10
@@J_a_s_o_n are you sure ? If I come in church half naked do you think God wont mind ?
People that has not read the scriptures from genesis to revelation are the once throwing confusion everywhere,,,, if you have read your bible for yourself and ask the Holy Spirit for help,,, you won’t just come here and shamelessly type nonsense and call yourself a Christain
God is not mocked and his words are yes and amen…. Your canal minds can’t understand it.
It's clearly stated in bible that woman should cover their head and nothing more but all our great pastor are saying another thing when you get to heaven u will know d truth
May God forgive all our great apostle in Nigeria with their teaching that full of error,misleading people
Go deeper ma. Take a 3 day dry fast maybe those scales will fall off ur eyes, may de eyes of ur understanding be enlightened
The only truth is Jesus, when we concentrate on Jesus teachings and life we will have less confusion. Shalom.
@@olatunjimary8894 you are funny. Do you become holy when you cover your head ?????
Please listen and read the whole chapter and see the revelation.
You have been indoctrinated to believe the FALSEHHODS of mankind.
A covered head does not make you holy
@@mercyikhena7889 Yes.
A cloth head does not make one righteous.
Unless the Holy Spirit guides one in particular.
And then He uses a strawman fallacy about whoever claimed to have gone to hell, to suggest that his own interpretation is correct. If he truly considered the bible thoroughly he would not have made this mistake.
Now He accurately refutes many other errors that have gone forth in the body of Christ while introducing his own unique error, and again he adds on top of that the error of suggesting that He is and apostle the the "AUTHORITY OF REVELATION". This is all too obvious if we're indeed careful about divine truth.
And he seems to disavow the Idea of authenticating a minister because of miraculous works, yet he authenticates Kathryn Kuhlmann ministry with regard to the miraculous works reported through her ministry.
He chose King James??? WHAT?????
HE SHOULD SERIOUSLY GET HIS FACTS RIGHT????
ALMOST NOTHING HE SAYS ABOUT KING JAMES IS CORRECT!!!
Can you IMAGINE!
My goodness this deception is so sincere, genuine and STRONG!!!
FATHER PLEASE!!! HAVE MERCY!!!!!!!!
You are HILARIOUSLY wrong.
Arome osayi repent Jesus is coming soon
I don't think the Bible is talking about husbands, it's the physical head.
@Nelly Custon if you read the rest of the verse with that understand then you will know that the Bible is talking about husband
“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”
- 1 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)
A woman covers her head and still dishonours her husband or her Father if she is not married, this too is sin.
“But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.”
- Matthew 18:16 (KJV)
“This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”
- 2 Corinthians 13:1 (KJV)
Remember;
“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”
- 2 Peter 1:20 (KJV)
You are right my Sister! Apostle is on heavy error! Don’t add don’t reduce! Apostle is adding! The Bible is clear!
@@zachianggandu774 WRONG
@Nelly Custon why would God expect every woman to cover her head with a cloth ? Does the cloth make her holy ? Let's reason.
PRAISE YSHUA IT IS NOT HOLY GHOST IT IS HOLY SPIRIT. SORRY KING JIMMY GOT THAT WRONG. 1 JOHN 5:7 WAS ALSO ADDED TO TEY AND PROVE TRINITY AMONGST OTHER THINGS BUT LETS LEAVE IT THE THERE. THE HEBREW WORD IS RUACH WHICH IS THE THE WORD USED FOR SPIRIT, BREATH AND WIND. SPIRIT NOT GHOST.
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Nawa o! Confusion everywhere!!…
Acts 2:4. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
God please open the eyes of our understanding and judge every falsehood here
If man is not spirit, so what is Man Apostle? Are you humans not spirit, soul and body?
Man has a spirit but not a spirit.Spirit has no flesh.
Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
To be honest the apostle is compromising
Sir the head and headship is not desame please study your Bible well before yuo set confusion into the Church of christ which you are already doing unknowingly
i pity those who are following this people u are finished
A woman should not cut her hair.
Those are your traditional religious rules. They are your culture. Follow them but they don't affect GOD'S KINGDOM
No not to a short bold kind of a level. I knew and believed about it just weeks ago so I had to cut my treated hair so that it grows back naturally. Am an African woman by the way.
Please don't send people to hell with this your theological teaching,because it is not biblical. Every listener should take this scripture and seek God for themselves,1john2:20 &26--27, Grace be with you all
Pastor pray to God for yourself too.
This is misinterpretation of scriptures, this is where many ministers stumble and lead many of their member to go to Hell.
This man is misinterpreting that scripture he quoted.
pray God help him.
Have you asked God to help you ?
God helps us. We want translation in French of the preach.
If verse 3 of that chapter mentions husband and head what makes you think subsequent verses is out of that context ?
@@nankanglesley9529 read verse 6 Yes, if she refuses to wear a head covering, then she should cut off all her hair. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her head shaved, then she should wear a covering.
@@tobibabalola3143 yes , because in Corinth that time the king hair of a woman was what signifies that you as a woman is submissive under your head , when you shave you become like a widow who has no head .That’s why Paul said she should have her hair cut off , so when every one sees her , they will know she’s not under a head .
So you see it says if it’s a disgrace for her to have her hair cut off , then she should cover her “head” if she she feels it’s a disgrace for her to shave , then she should honor her head (husband ) so her hair remains long .
Funny.... stop teaching heresy....your illustration is far wrong.
I am ashamed hearing this nonsense from your mouth sir