Hey Maddy, I'm thinkin' it's kinda weird how some folks get all riled up about head-coverin'. They're all like, "Oh no, I'll lose my freedom!" But I'm like, "Hold up, do you really lose your freedom if you cover your head?" I don't think so. And let's be real, Muslims do it too. I reckon they're not thinkin' they're losin' their freedom just 'cause they're coverin' up. As a dude, I gotta say, modesty is modesty, regardless of gender - when you cover up, you're protectin' yourself from all that extra stuff, and maybe even helpin' others keep their eyes on the prize instead of gettin' distracted by all that skin. Peace.
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.
Such a great blessing to have found your channel! I have worn a tichel-style head-covering for many years after being strongly convicted by a study of I Corinthians 11. Your video is concise, succinct and very informative. I am going to recommend it to those who ask me about my headcovering. I have encountered people who say that headcovering is contradicted by I Peter 3:3 and I Timothy 2:9 (specifically, their argument is that if the women were covering their hair, why would these verses mention braided hair. These verses are used to contradict headcovering). Do you have any suggestions for a response to such arguments?
Thank you! And yes I actually do! If you watch my video 4 Things to Consider When Choosing a Veil I address that! I’ll like it below :) ua-cam.com/video/a9TCFpN0n5w/v-deo.htmlsi=y1alzia9yR-4hq4P
Hey Maddy, what's your opinion on the passage of 1Corinthians 11 ( verse 5&13) being specifically about "praying and prophecing" and that the gentiles would not be subjected to "the law' in applying this to general covering? All glory to God and may God continue to bless you~ 🙏
Thank you, sister, God bless you as well! I will say that there is no specific directive to head cover in the Law (for women) if we are referring to the commandments that God gave; written in the Torah. Rather there are verses that reveal what parts of the woman's body uncovered are considered as "nakedness." This includes Isaiah 47:2-3. Numbers 5:18 also alludes to the fact that it was commonplace for married women to cover their heads and their hair. Now modesty is something that we are explicitly commanded to practice in the New Testament (1 Timothy 2:9 - I plan on releasing a video soon going into detail about this and the correlation of this verse with Isaiah 47:2-3). Biblically, head-covering is considered modest. Regarding the verses only referring to praying and prophesying in the New Testament, here is my understanding: In this chapter Paul is specifically addressing issues that pertained to public worship and the gathering of the church. Mike Winger has a great video about the head-covering verses in 1 Corinthians 11 and when he looked at the cultural context of the time and the history, there appears to be more evidence that it was actually a practice for women in Corinth to cover their heads when leaving their home. He says that it appears that the majority of women were following the head-covering tradition (as they presumably did in their daily lives) and there were a few women who didn't want to, which is why he addressed the issue in 1 Cor. 11. Looking back on Biblical commentaries and what preachers have taught regarding head-covering throughout the centuries (since the time of the early church), it was largely understood that Paul was referring to the public gathering of the church (not only specific times of prayer and prophecy). They also often mention that it was a common practice of modesty that women should head cover in public and if it be decent to do so in public, how could you not do it during the gathering of the church? Here is a quote from Desiderius Erasmus (1466 - 1536): "If a woman prays or prophesies in the solemn assembly with her head uncovered, she shames her head, because it ought to be uncovered in private for the sake of her husband-not in a public assembly, where Christ is served, not her husband.” Does that answer your question?
@MadddyKayy Good morning, and yes, it does! I will have to check out the Mike W. video, my husband and I listen to his channel frequently. Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. Numbers 6: 24 -26😇
@@GodsWordisTruth-zg1jj If long hair were the only covering mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11 then there’s a major problem with verse 6. Let me show you what I mean. If long hair were the same as being covered according to Paul, what would be being uncovered? It would mean having short hair, right? The opposite of covered is uncovered and the opposite of long hair is short hair. So if that’s what Paul had in mind, let’s do some word replacement in verse 6. Where we see the word “cover her head”, let’s replace that with “have long hair”. For if a woman does not [have long hair], let her also have her hair cut off (1 Cor 11:6a NASB) For if a wife will not [have long hair], then she should cut her hair short (1 Cor 11:6a ESV) If you refuse to have long hair, you should cut your hair short? You’d already have short hair! This argument wouldn’t make sense. Some then object to the ESV rendering of “cut short”. They would understand “cut off” (NASB) as a synonym for shaved making this argument less nonsensical. Paul’s argument would then be transformed into “if a woman has short hair, she should shave it all off”. The problem with this argument is “cut off” cannot mean shaved in this context. The Greek word translated “cut off” is keirō. This word is used again later in this very same passage and it’s differentiated from “shaved” which is the Greek word xuraō. Here’s what it says: “…disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off (keirō) or her head shaved (xuraō)…”. Did you catch it? He said “or” shaved. So while “cut off” (keirō) can be used to describe a shaved head, Paul couldn’t have had this in mind here. 3) If we were to understand it that way his argument becomes “…disgraceful for a woman to have her hair [shaved] or her head shaved…”. Shaved or shaved? Once again this just wouldn’t make sense.”
Actually you are right to question this obvious flaw in the idea of head covering. If we are to stick to scriptures then where exactly does it say that some part of the hair that was still visible with the veil on? This is not reason by scripture it is simply one's opinion. What you should have also added is why when referring to how a woman is to adorn herself is not the veil even mentioned. It would seem like the perfect opportunity to mention it but he doesn't neither does Peter when he also talks about how a woman should adorn herself. Kudos on catching the conflict of claiming there is a visible part yet shows that it is not visible on screen.
@hannahsimmons2343 You have no scripture to reference from. You are now just making up things where does it say about vain thoughts. You are weird and now I can confirm that you are a stalker just like you are stalking FA. REPENT!
Should a man wear a head covering? Just as women should cover their head to show they are submitting to their spouse, then men should cover to show they to need to submit to God. If he has chosen Jesus as His Lord, then he should show that commitment by wearing a head covering, just as women show their submission, so should man. The difference is not the head covering but who wears it and when. In Deut. 6:8-9, God tells us to apply the Ten Commandments on our forehead, then, when Jesus tells us to "keep" also His words, we apply the Sermon on the Mount to show our commitment to The Father and The Son. A man should never wear a head covering, in church, if they haven't chosen Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. They are not to submit to any man, company etc.. They have to remove their head covering before entering a church etc.. To not wear a head covering simply shows that you have not chosen in whom you shall serve. If a woman is married and the man has not committed to the Lord then she also should not cover, for then she would be usurping the man's authority. A woman should be covering her head, the man in her life. Every child of God should cover with The Father or The Son, or even the Holy Spirit. The scripture shows that all three would be what we should strive for.
The levitical priests were commanded to cover their heads (Exodus 28; Leviticus 8) to signify that their "head" Messiah had not yet been manifest. When Messiah was manifested, all men who are in Him show their submission, respect, and honor by removing their headgear during the priestly service of prayer and prophesy. Because their "head" is no longer covered. Have you heard the Good News? Messiah has been manifested! 1 Corinthians 11:4 "Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head." Woman on the other hand, shows her submission to man (and Christ) by continuing to cover her glory (long hair) until the glorious revealing of the sons of God (Romans 8:18).
Paul was a false apostle. Look at Jesus words not Paul. Did Jesus teach women to be quiet and cover their heads ? Jesus is our head not Paul . God bless you and your family. 💕🙏🏽☝🏾🙌🏽
All biblical books were inspired by the Holy Spirit, who used people to write the Bible. Paul is no exception, not agreeing with scripture is being against God. I know that sometimes the Bible confronts us and it is difficult for us to accept things, but that is how it is written and as christians we must submit to the word.
@@BRiter-ep4mv , Jesus is testing us . Jesus warned us about Paul … Paul wrote his own Gospel and told his followers that his gospel was the only way. Jesus is the truth… not Paul. Pray on this subject and ask Jesus for guidance and discernment. I will pray for you. 🙌🏽🙏🏽☝🏾
@@Bubby-lovesJesus Your logic doesn't make sense. So we should not believe in the law that God gave to Moses since the book of Leviticus was written by Moses and he commands the people to submit to the law. You are stubbornly acting just like the Israelites in the beginning, they did not like what the law said and they acted according to what they thought was right. Read the Bible, no church in history discredits Paul's writings. Be careful what you say.
oo how about summer outfits inspo!? long-sleeves?
Hey Maddy, I'm thinkin' it's kinda weird how some folks get all riled up about head-coverin'. They're all like, "Oh no, I'll lose my freedom!" But I'm like, "Hold up, do you really lose your freedom if you cover your head?" I don't think so.
And let's be real, Muslims do it too. I reckon they're not thinkin' they're losin' their freedom just 'cause they're coverin' up.
As a dude, I gotta say, modesty is modesty, regardless of gender - when you cover up, you're protectin' yourself from all that extra stuff, and maybe even helpin' others keep their eyes on the prize instead of gettin' distracted by all that skin.
Peace.
Honestly I feel more free now than I did before I started dressing modestly.
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.
Such a great blessing to have found your channel! I have worn a tichel-style head-covering for many years after being strongly convicted by a study of I Corinthians 11. Your video is concise, succinct and very informative. I am going to recommend it to those who ask me about my headcovering. I have encountered people who say that headcovering is contradicted by I Peter 3:3 and I Timothy 2:9 (specifically, their argument is that if the women were covering their hair, why would these verses mention braided hair. These verses are used to contradict headcovering). Do you have any suggestions for a response to such arguments?
Thank you! And yes I actually do! If you watch my video 4 Things to Consider When Choosing a Veil I address that! I’ll like it below :)
ua-cam.com/video/a9TCFpN0n5w/v-deo.htmlsi=y1alzia9yR-4hq4P
Hey Maddy, what's your opinion on the passage of 1Corinthians 11 ( verse 5&13) being specifically about "praying and prophecing" and that the gentiles would not be subjected to "the law' in applying this to general covering?
All glory to God and may God continue to bless you~ 🙏
Thank you, sister, God bless you as well! I will say that there is no specific directive to head cover in the Law (for women) if we are referring to the commandments that God gave; written in the Torah. Rather there are verses that reveal what parts of the woman's body uncovered are considered as "nakedness." This includes Isaiah 47:2-3. Numbers 5:18 also alludes to the fact that it was commonplace for married women to cover their heads and their hair. Now modesty is something that we are explicitly commanded to practice in the New Testament (1 Timothy 2:9 - I plan on releasing a video soon going into detail about this and the correlation of this verse with Isaiah 47:2-3). Biblically, head-covering is considered modest. Regarding the verses only referring to praying and prophesying in the New Testament, here is my understanding: In this chapter Paul is specifically addressing issues that pertained to public worship and the gathering of the church. Mike Winger has a great video about the head-covering verses in 1 Corinthians 11 and when he looked at the cultural context of the time and the history, there appears to be more evidence that it was actually a practice for women in Corinth to cover their heads when leaving their home. He says that it appears that the majority of women were following the head-covering tradition (as they presumably did in their daily lives) and there were a few women who didn't want to, which is why he addressed the issue in 1 Cor. 11. Looking back on Biblical commentaries and what preachers have taught regarding head-covering throughout the centuries (since the time of the early church), it was largely understood that Paul was referring to the public gathering of the church (not only specific times of prayer and prophecy). They also often mention that it was a common practice of modesty that women should head cover in public and if it be decent to do so in public, how could you not do it during the gathering of the church?
Here is a quote from Desiderius Erasmus (1466 - 1536):
"If a woman prays or prophesies in the solemn assembly with her head uncovered, she shames her head, because it ought to be uncovered in private for the sake of her husband-not in a public assembly, where Christ is served, not her husband.”
Does that answer your question?
@MadddyKayy
Good morning, and yes, it does! I will have to check out the Mike W. video, my husband and I listen to his channel frequently.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.
Numbers 6: 24 -26😇
Women were already covered. Paul is saying they shouldn’t be uncovered, as in uncovering like the men.
@@user-xz2dw8jg4u This is true as the Bible already states that long hair is the covering.
@@GodsWordisTruth-zg1jj If long hair were the only covering mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11 then there’s a major problem with verse 6.
Let me show you what I mean.
If long hair were the same as being covered according to Paul, what would be being uncovered? It would mean having short hair, right? The opposite of covered is uncovered and the opposite of long hair is short hair. So if that’s what Paul had in mind, let’s do some word replacement in verse 6. Where we see the word “cover her head”, let’s replace that with “have long hair”.
For if a woman does not [have long hair], let her also have her hair cut off (1 Cor 11:6a NASB)
For if a wife will not [have long hair], then she should cut her hair short (1 Cor 11:6a ESV)
If you refuse to have long hair, you should cut your hair short? You’d already have short hair! This argument wouldn’t make sense.
Some then object to the ESV rendering of “cut short”. They would understand “cut off” (NASB) as a synonym for shaved making this argument less nonsensical. Paul’s argument would then be transformed into “if a woman has short hair, she should shave it all off”. The problem with this argument is “cut off” cannot mean shaved in this context.
The Greek word translated “cut off” is keirō. This word is used again later in this very same passage and it’s differentiated from “shaved” which is the Greek word xuraō.
Here’s what it says: “…disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off (keirō) or her head shaved (xuraō)…”. Did you catch it? He said “or” shaved. So while “cut off” (keirō) can be used to describe a shaved head, Paul couldn’t have had this in mind here. 3) If we were to understand it that way his argument becomes “…disgraceful for a woman to have her hair [shaved] or her head shaved…”. Shaved or shaved? Once again this just wouldn’t make sense.”
If hair has to be covered why even bring up adorning of the hair and braiding if it’s covered, it’s obvious
It’s because part of the hair was still visible with the veil on. I talk about it in my “What Type of Veil Should a Christian Woman Wear?” video.
@@MadddyKayy like yours right
Actually you are right to question this obvious flaw in the idea of head covering. If we are to stick to scriptures then where exactly does it say that some part of the hair that was still visible with the veil on? This is not reason by scripture it is simply one's opinion. What you should have also added is why when referring to how a woman is to adorn herself is not the veil even mentioned. It would seem like the perfect opportunity to mention it but he doesn't neither does Peter when he also talks about how a woman should adorn herself.
Kudos on catching the conflict of claiming there is a visible part yet shows that it is not visible on screen.
@hannahsimmons2343 You have no scripture to reference from. You are now just making up things where does it say about vain thoughts. You are weird and now I can confirm that you are a stalker just like you are stalking FA. REPENT!
Should a man wear a head covering?
Just as women should cover their head to show they are submitting to their spouse, then men should cover to show they to need to submit to God. If he has chosen Jesus as His Lord, then he should show that commitment by wearing a head covering, just as women show their submission, so should man.
The difference is not the head covering but who wears it and when. In Deut. 6:8-9, God tells us to apply the Ten Commandments on our forehead, then, when Jesus tells us to "keep" also His words, we apply the Sermon on the Mount to show our commitment to The Father and The Son.
A man should never wear a head covering, in church, if they haven't chosen Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. They are not to submit to any man, company etc.. They have to remove their head covering before entering a church etc.. To not wear a head covering simply shows that you have not chosen in whom you shall serve.
If a woman is married and the man has not committed to the Lord then she also should not cover, for then she would be usurping the man's authority.
A woman should be covering her head, the man in her life. Every child of God should cover with The Father or The Son, or even the Holy Spirit. The scripture shows that all three would be what we should strive for.
The levitical priests were commanded to cover their heads (Exodus 28; Leviticus 8) to signify that their "head" Messiah had not yet been manifest. When Messiah was manifested, all men who are in Him show their submission, respect, and honor by removing their headgear during the priestly service of prayer and prophesy. Because their "head" is no longer covered. Have you heard the Good News? Messiah has been manifested!
1 Corinthians 11:4
"Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head."
Woman on the other hand, shows her submission to man (and Christ) by continuing to cover her glory (long hair) until the glorious revealing of the sons of God (Romans 8:18).
Paul was a false apostle. Look at Jesus words not Paul. Did Jesus teach women to be quiet and cover their heads ? Jesus is our head not Paul . God bless you and your family. 💕🙏🏽☝🏾🙌🏽
Hi. Why do think/believe that Paul was a false apostle? I'm genuinely curious, I'm not trying to start an argument or a fight.
They reject paul because they don't like the passages about woman so they say the apostle paul is false
All biblical books were inspired by the Holy Spirit, who used people to write the Bible. Paul is no exception, not agreeing with scripture is being against God. I know that sometimes the Bible confronts us and it is difficult for us to accept things, but that is how it is written and as christians we must submit to the word.
@@BRiter-ep4mv , Jesus is testing us . Jesus warned us about Paul … Paul wrote his own Gospel and told his followers that his gospel was the only way. Jesus is the truth… not Paul. Pray on this subject and ask Jesus for guidance and discernment. I will pray for you. 🙌🏽🙏🏽☝🏾
@@Bubby-lovesJesus Your logic doesn't make sense. So we should not believe in the law that God gave to Moses since the book of Leviticus was written by Moses and he commands the people to submit to the law. You are stubbornly acting just like the Israelites in the beginning, they did not like what the law said and they acted according to what they thought was right. Read the Bible, no church in history discredits Paul's writings. Be careful what you say.